TV Zone

News, scoops, reviews and more from TV land.

What will David Letterman do in retirement? Considering the options...

David Letterman in retirement: The very phrase is daunting, an existential conundrum. A riddle without an answer.

We kid, but not by a large margin: Letterman in retirement does not compute. He is devoted to his show, his staff, and the daily routine of putting out broadcast television's best talk show, late night or otherwise. He does not have, or is not known to have, hobbies, or anything that would comprise a time-consuming pastime which people in retirement are supposed to typically consume their time with: Golf, tennis, travel, the grandkids, Myrtle Beach . . . Mowing the lawn at the North Salem place? Hard to imagine.

But that doesn't mean he has no outside interests -- those are well-known and well-established. He has an LA-based charitable foundation, has close ties to his alma mater, Ball State; there's a budding record company and, of course, Worldwide Pants.

Probably the most exciting outside venture is Rahal Letterman Lanigan Racing -- his IndyCar team that he owns with former racing great Bobby Rahal and which had considerable success in the middle of the last decade, and only recently returned to full-time competition, and is also involved with the American LeMans circuit (they race a custom built BMW).

Letterman is every bit the motor head Jay Leno is, absent the compulsive need to buy everything on wheels. Dave is not exactly a collector by nature.

But these ventures are already operating concerns -- successful side-businesses with their own staffs. Does David want to become involved more fully with each of those when his absentee ownership status has sufficed nicely all these years? Presumably a question only he can answer.

Then, there is this question: What about a return to television in some capacity? That presumes the old saw that great TV talents just can't stay away from the hot light -- that Bill Cosby just has to get back in the game, or that Oprah can't be far from TV so she'll just buy a network instead, or that Jay really will go to Fox, and so on.

Of course I don't buy it. Letterman really doesn't need it. He really doesn't need the fame or fortune -- he doesn't have that burning desire to be loved, to hear the audience applause or to be fulfilled -- as part of some sort of deep-seated narcissistic impulse -- by the omnipresence of cameras and that blinking red light.

He's long had a curious ambivalence to fame -- which is part of his appeal, certainly. I can take this stupid job and shove it has long been implicit in the Letterman MO -- a sense that the world is mad, television is madder and there's certainly no reason to go completely insane along with it.

For that reason, don't bet on a TV future in retirement. But that doesn't mean there couldn't and shouldn't be one. A Charlie Rose-like show, hosted by the Thoughtful Dave, with thoughtful questions offered in the spirit of thoughtfulness . . . a deeper exploration of his interests absent the quips or jokes or Paul Shaffer one-liners over to the side (not that there's anything wrong with any of that . . .)?

Something a little more PBS-like, or fringe-cable-like? Once a week even?

Only Dave has the answers to these questions. We'll see how he answers them.

Who will replace David Letterman? Let the errant speculation begin!

Host David Letterman during a taping of his

(Credit: AP/CBS / John Paul Filo)

We know David Letterman is irreplaceable. But who will replace David Letterman?

There are many names, few truly qualified. Which means you must immediately rule out the superficially appealing names because they will never happen.

These include people like Jerry Seinfeld or Neil Patrick Harris or someone I'm not thinking of at the moment (Pee Wee Herman, Bruce Jenner . . .) They have never hosted a late-night talk show, and I am mindful of many stories of late night past: Stars like Billy Crystal (who had the sense not to do one for Fox) and Chevy Chase (who did not have the sense to do a show for Fox) believing that this gig must be a cinch.

PHOTOS: Notable 'Late Show' guests | Late-night TV hosts

VIDEO: Letterman announces retirement

("Hey, you show up, tell a few jokes, talk to some guest, then say goodnight . .. ") 

This is the hardest job in show business, by far. It's every day, weekends off. It's grueling work where you manage huge staffs, spar with networks -- the worst part of the job -- and then stand out there every night and try to be funny.  It's lucrative, but I can't imagine Jay Leno or Letterman did this for the money, which was ridiculously good, as they would be the first to admit.

 So who does this leave?

 To a list.  

 Stephen Colbert: Front-runner, without question. His contract at Comedy Central ends this year, CBS is interested (I have heard this from a senior industry executive) and he is very good and very funny. Questions, no doubt, about whether he will "break character." Should be a cinch. Plus, he's an excellent interviewer.

Jay Leno: Jay's name has to come up here. He's one of the most successful late-night talk show hosts in history, and he's unemployed. Why shouldn't it come up? One possible reason: His "Tonight" attracted an "old" audience (pushing 60, on average, which is old, I guess.) TV covets youth.

Chelsea Handler: The dark horse candidate and the long-shot candidate. She's leaving E!, she's funny, she has a following, and she knows how to do late-night TV. Drawback: She's a she. Late-night TV hosts are usually men. Don't blame me -- I don't make up the rules. Plus, she's leaving E!. I mean really . . . "Former E! host replaces Letterman." Rather sad headline, wouldn't you say?

Jon Stewart: Of course everyone wants Jon Stewart -- but could some watered-down approximation of "The Daily Show" work at "Late Show?" Hard to believe, possibly harder to stomach. Stewart is -- I don't use this word lightly -- a genius at what he does. He would be miserable to the point of throwing-himself-in-front-of-oncoming traffic to chat with the latest star selling the latest lousy movie. But who knows what's going to happen? He's certainly smart enough to figure out some sort of inventive way to reshape "Late Show." I still say: Long shot.

Craig Ferguson: The in-house star and a long-shot. Ferguson is excellent, funny, inventive, interesting, and has a terrific animatronic sidekick in Geoff. But "Late Late Show" always lost to Jimmy Fallon's "Late Night." How would a Ferguson "Late Show" then do opposite Fallon's "Tonight?" (Again, I don't make up the rules.)

David Letterman's retirement announcement: The clip

During the afternoon taping of the "Late Show"

(Credit: "Late Show with David Letterman" via YouTube.com)

Here it is, a bit of TV history: David Letterman telling the world that he'll end a remarkable 32-year run in 2015.

 

Analyzing David Letterman's retirement: The bigger picture

David Letterman announced his retirement last night, but why now? Quickly, some background: Here's what I wrote a couple weeks ago., but to add to this -- there's no indication this was any decision other than Dave's.

What about Dave? Letterman turns 67 April 12. He is -- yes -- the second greatest late night talk show host in TV history, and also the second oldest: Johnny Carson was 66 when he retired in 1992.

The rule in television is, just to restate, ironclad -- older audiences mean reduced profits, and with younger crowds at ABC and NBC, there will also be pressure at CBS to lower its average age, by grooming a new generation of "Late Show" viewers with (alas) a new "Late Show" host.

Letterman, who has a contract through 2015, has given no indication that he plans to step aside -- or as he put it to Oprah during an interview a year or so ago: "When it’s time to go, somebody else tell me. Because I don’t know when it’s time to go.”

No one wants to see Letterman go. I never want to see Letterman go. He is the greatest, most entertaining, most inventive late-night host in my lifetime. He is Dave. There is no other Dave and never will be.

That said . . . reality is reality. Letterman will be moving along someday. For whom? Replacement possibilities remain the obvious ones -- and Craig Ferguson is not among them.

Because "The Late Late Show" host lost regularly to Fallon's "Late Night," there's appears to little chance he would succeed at 11:35 opposite Fallon again, or so the logic goes. A shame: Ferguson's "Late Late Show" is endlessly amusing, his monologues funny and his sidekick, Geoff, probably the single finest animatronic skeleton in late-night history. But still. Stephen Colbert's contract at Comedy Central ends this year, Jon Stewart's next year.

There now appears to be growing industry consensus that Colbert may now be the heir apparent. Is it the CBS consensus? The Colbert one? By the way, the average age of "The Colbert Report" viewer is 43. My kicker:

Stephen Colbert could well be the next host of "Late Show."

And of course, this: We'll see.

Lindsay Lohan on 'Late Show with David Letterman' Wednesday

Lindsay Lohan talks to David Letterman about rehab,

(Credit: AP)

Welcome to TV Zone, AKA Where-the-Lindsay-Lohan-Watch-Never-Stops: To that end, she'll be on "Late Show with David Letterman" next Wednesday, April 9. She's also on the following Monday's "Two Broke Girls," where she plays "Claire," or as CBS notes:  

As Max and Caroline get to know her, it quickly becomes clear that Claire has trouble making decisions.

(Just to re-iterate, as to avoid confusion, Claire/Linds has "trouble making decisions," not "trouble-making decisions...")

 

Michael Strahan to join 'Good Morning America,' remain on 'Live with Kelly and Michael'

Michael Strahan, co-host of "Live with Kelly and

(Credit: AP / Evan Agostini)

Michael Strahan -- forever and affectionately No. 92 -- is about to get a closer close-up: He's joining "Good Morning America." 

Meanwhile, Strahan just indicated on the air that the "GMA" move will happen but not as an "every day thing...Gotta be smart about it." He also said "Live" remains "my home...This is great. I'm not sore after the show. We'll see what happens but this is my number one priority."

Trade reports Tuesday said Strahan is a "done" deal -- which I have confirmed -- and that he will be joining the "family" later this week. ABC has declined comment (officially) and is doubtless trying to cobble together answers to all the questions:


MORE: Greatest TV characters | Reality TV | TV Zone blog | TV Listings


How will he do this as well as "Live with Kelly and Michael," which he will remain a part of and which is live at exactly 9 a.m., or about one second after "GMA" wraps?

What happens when the NFL season rolls around again, and his services are required at Fox as an analyst? 

Is this one of those reflexive moves designed to quell any annoying questions about the loss of Josh Elliott and how the "family" of "GMA" is really not a " family" but just a group of squabbling rich people who want to get richer now that "GMA" is No. 1? 

You know: Those kinds of questions. 

Fact is, Strahan has been a success at "Live," and ABC is scrambling to do whatever it can to blunt NBC's Steinbrenner moves -- paying fortunes to people in an attempt to dismember the winning team. Meanwhile, the president of ABC News, Ben Sherwood, is about to become the president of the entire Disney empire; he does not want to leave a shattered "GMA" as his legacy. (And by the way, "shatter" is a highly unlikely scenario certainly in the foreseeable future: "GMA" remains a strong number one...)  
 

And that is how TV works, my friends ...

Duchovny gets Manson-related NBC series

David Duchovny (born Aug. 7, 1960): The actor

(Credit: Getty Images)

David Duchovny, Charles Manson...unrelated names until this point in time: NBC has given a straight-to-series order for his '60s era period drama entitled "Aquarius" about Charles Manson, and the cop - played by DD - who chases him. Word of this show has been "out there," so to speak, but a 13-episode order? That's unusual and indicates a.) This might actually be a good series; and b.) Duchovny,...

Read more »

Louis CK's 'Saturday Night Live' is low-rated, high-quality

Louis CK attends a game between the Knicks

(Credit: Jim McIsaac)

Louis CK returned as host of "Saturday Night Live" and even the barest glance at Twitter yesterday seemed to suggest a desultory afterglow -- lowest rated, or near-lowest rated edition of the season, and therefore ho-hum.

But as usual, viewers who didn't bother to tune in missed one of the best episodes of the season -- excellent cold open, parodying President Obama's health care hard-sell, and easily the best host monologue of the entire season. Who knows really why ratings were low ... but there were nonrepresentative. (Many good skits, too.)

Meanwhile, here's CK's monologue -- actually an unusually non-blue eight minutes of very good and thoughtful material. "Thoughtful material" in a host monologue? Imagine that.

 

'The Walking Dead' finale recap: The end of the line

This undated image released by AMC shows Lauren

(Credit: AP / AMC / Gene Page)

Quiz time: What were the final words uttered/muttered/sputtered by Rick in the closing seconds of last night's fourth season finale of "The Walking Dead?" 

(And I first offer here the obligatory "spoiler alert!" for those who have yet to watch, or don't even realize that Rick survived -- because of course he did, contrary to whatever chatter was going on this season.)  

 a.) "They just made a major and unfortunate mistake -- unfortunate for them!"


MORE: Greatest TV characters | Reality TV | TV Zone blog | TV Listings


b.) They don't know who they're dealing with -- maybe they should ask Joe."

c.) "I'm  hungry . . . for neck."

 d.) "Hasta la vista, baby."

e.) None of the above (though a. is a close approximation.)

Correct answer is e.), which means Armageddon approaches again, in the fifth season -- which, by the way, signals yet another major migration for our small survivor pod as they head to Washington. In other words, Terminus is quite obviously not a long-term solution.

What is one to make of Terminus, first seen a couple of episodes ago and which clearly -- to anyone who lived through Woodbury -- was one of those too good to be true places?

Clearly to me it represents some sort of railroadized version of a Nazi death camp -- with its sloganeering and soothing bromides offered by strange unbalanced people who are (were) too smooth, too unrattled, too well-fed.

You expect a sign above the entrance to read: "Arbeit Macht Frei."

 And then the railroad cars.

 A quick glance at any "Dead" affiliated Wiki indicates that "Terminus" was the original name given to Atlanta, where a railroad terminus was built; I have no idea whether that is true, but it seems compelling enough. Who are these people? Why are they here? Why the enforced enslavement, or is the spirit of the Gov'nah alive and well, in other communities of the living?

What Sunday night's fourth season indicated, or demonstrated, is that Robert Kirkman's overall vision, as delineated by Scott Gimple -- who's done a good job with this brutal franchise as new showrunner -- is like a savage hall of mirrors: The dead aren't the ones to fear, as much as the living. Communities can't form without the requisite distillation of all that is terrible and loathsome in human nature -- the need to conquer, to control, and then ultimately, destroy.

 And Rick, recognizing that, has been reduced to his most fundamental nature, too -- ripping out the carotid artery in Joe, while a geyser of blood sprayed his face.

Zounds, that was awful. But it was what this world has become, only worse.   

Next season, (apparently) Washington. Our small and brutalized group should feel right at home there.

Jimmy Kimmel spoofs the Kardashians assault on the Hamptons

Jimmy Kimmel - who  not only seems to know more about pop culture than any other late night host but who actually seems to appreciate it more than any other - took after the titans of pop fluff last night. We speak of the Kardashians.  Results are amusing...

 

advertisement | advertise on newsday

What’s on TV tonight

advertisement | advertise on newsday