The Hot Blog

Roeper is a terrible writer and perhaps the worst film critic on the planet. But I'm sure he's a swell guy.

I've gotten pretty tired of the way he avoids reviewing films. His review of 'Kung Fu Hustle' was the capper for me. He didn't feel like liking it so he didn't. No reason given, no aesthetic espoused, he just didn't want to like it. He's so lazy he doesn't seem to realize that what film critics do is CRITIQUE! He spends more time avoiding his job than actually doing it.

His review of XXX: State of the Union was even worse than his for Kung Fu Hustle. Granted, the movie is bad, but he barely let Ebert say anything before jumping yelling "zero stars" and when Ebert tried to continue "negative one star". The man is not a movie critic. His column is a silly "news and views" one. He was really the best choice to replace Gene Siskel? I think not.

he should show some balls and stand by his writing instead of cowering. but what do u expect from him?

How exactly is he cowering? I read the column and it's all right their in black and white. If you write something critical and then jokingly back off of it, does it really count as "scurrying back into the dark?"

There's one thing that Poland said that I agree with: "If the shoe fits a certain 'film critic'..." So, running your own website and posting your bitches, complaints and occasional reviews constitutes being a "film critic?" Nice shoes! Millions of guys living in their mom's basements will be thrilled! And maybe they'll see you at the next junket

Speaking of posting silly things: Today in a link on Movie City News, Dave refers to Frank Rich of the NYT as a "humorless thug." This would be funny if it weren't so sad. As Ronnie Reagan used to say: There you go again. Dave's increasingly beyond-the pale assaults on NYT in general and Frank Rich in particular smacks of the most pitiable sort of professional envy. And before you piss and moan about being wrongly accused of having a personal agenda -- sorry, buddy, but "thug" is a word that makes it extremely personal, unless you can back it up with specific -- very specific -- instances of thuggish behavior. And guess what? Just writing something you don't like doesn't count.

Wow... Joe and Bess, sitting in a tree...

First you, Joe. Take your shots if you like, but if you are so right, why do you have to cheat by taking me out of context in every one of these rants? I wrote, "Misses Joke, As Humorless Thugs On Either Side Of The Political Spectrum Always Do." And I would argue that every time either side of the aisle decides South Park is on their side or the other side, they just look like fools. In that article, Rich offers what I consider the worst writer's crutch in the game... he says, "look at what those idiots are doing" and then proceeds to try to do exactly the same thing.

As for you, Bess... sorry you don’t approve of me doing more than 800 words a week per film, 400 of them a regurgitation of the plot from the press kit. I would venture to say that I write more criticism in greater depth each year than 90% of the people you would call critics. No, just mentioning movies and bitching on a blog is not enough. I agree. But when people penalize me because I don’t limit myself, I just have to shake my head.

Have you read The Hot Button? Have you paid any attention to MCN? Do you really see me as some guy in my mom’s basement? I mean, you really are welcome to disagree with me. But I’m afraid your attempt to diminish me and the professional work that goes on in all of my ventures reflects more on you than the work.

As for Roeper’s style in that piece, it was unclear enough to have Mark Listani at Defamer thinking that Rich does, in fact, think that anyone saying the relationship is a sham is off the beam. I don’t think Listani is one of journalism’s deep thinkers, but he’s not a moron.

And even as I found myself defending Roeper, I’m not 100% sure I’m right. His graph about giving up the right to privacy after announcing your romance doesn’t seem to doubt the legitimacy of the relationship so much as question what the next PR move will be.

Once again: You used the term "thug." Not hack. Not fool. Not bad writer. Thug. Now, if you want to pull a Roeper and back away from what you wrote, that's cool. If you want to say oooh, oooh, it's just hyperbole, well, that's a cop-out, but that's also cool. But words have meanings, and if you really do intend to be taken seriously as a writer, you'd do well to recognize that. Even if you're determined to dis the NYT at every opportunity. (And BTW: It's obvious by now I'm not the only faithful reader here who notices it.)

And, geez, can you be any more immature and childish than this "sitting in a tree" business?

By the way, Bess: Do you come here often? What's your sign? Do you like gladiator movies?

Joe at least have a basis for your attacks here on David. Luckily we all know your style and how out of context they are.

Dave: Damn! Now THAT is impresive. Mark parrots you, and I don't even see you lips moving! It's a shame "The Ed Sullivan Show' isn't on anymore.

I don't know exactly how Roeper's column was meant to be taken. You'd have to ask him.

What I do know is that I just want to hear about the movies. I have read the Hot Button and I do read MCN and you know what, you're a good writer when you stick to that element.

What I don't want is a "defense" of a critic that you've often taken cheap shots at and that you don't respect. Get over it! We all get it, you don't like him. And that's okay. A lot of people didn't like Siskel and a lot of people don't like Ebert.

Your "defense" of him came off as something that John Kerry would have said in "defense" of George W. Bush.

He's been doing E&R for over 5 years.

ATTENTION: PEOPLE OF EARTH - Roeper is now officially a film critic, whether you like it or not...

How many times do you think the name "David Poland" has appeared in Roeper's column? I'm guessing zero... Now go back and count up how many times you've mentioned him over the years.

So who does that say more about?

You SURE he's a film critic? I mean, doesn't he just play on on TV? (Richard, in case you're reading: Just a joke. I kid, because I love.)

Attack David all you want
He's an easy target.
But he is a movie buff and lover.
He is less of a critic than an analyst.
And Roeper is 100% all tool.

I am Spam Dooley and I FEED my people!!!!

Two things:

The label "South Park Conservatives" refer to those who, like Matt and Trey, reject the PC, elitist bullying of the far left, while not embracing the social conservitism of the right. Giving examples of where Matt and Trey tweak the right isn't some sort of revelation, to the book's author or anyone else. I've actually watched an interview with the author; the title is an attention-grabber and the analogy isn't to be taken so literally as Rich does in his article. Also, WOW is Rich bitter!

Second, I don't understand the criticisms of finding talent via American Idol. Is it more legitimate for a record exec to try and guess what people will like, rather than the people simply voting for who they like? And no, I'm not even a rare viewer of the show (I don't get the networks on my DirecTV sub).

I'm not jumping on the attack Dave bandwagon. But after reading him for 5 years, I've come to realize that the only thing that gets Dave more passionate than movies, is "Entertainment Journalism Ethics." So, the NYT ethics seem to be a problem for Dave. I wish there is some way to communicate to him that nobody really gives a shit about calling out other Entertainment journalists on their reporting. I just want to read some insightful commentary on movies and the business behind them. If their reporting is inaccurate, report your perception of the truth and leave it alone.
Does anyone with any film background really listen to or give a flying furk what Roeper says anyways? Why are we all pouring so much negative crap on this topic?
And on a final note, Mark Listani's commentary on Defamer is hilarious. I especially like his one today towards Micheal Bay regarding his philisophical implications to cloning.

Joey -

First... I'm not determined to dis the NYT at any turn. There are eight NYT headlines on MCN right now... I wrote all of them... 3 include a judgment of some sort. The Rich one is the only one I would consider anything other than informational.

I’m not backing away from the word “thug,” but you continue to argue the point out of the context of the whole headline. Why? Because it makes it seem more personal, which is the case you want to make, apparently.

“Humorless thugs on either side.”

And yes, I consider Rich a bully. He was as a critic and he is a columnist. He beats the same drum over and over and over again. And he doesn’t engage his subjects so much as adjust them to his point of view.

Now, I am aware that there are those who would say the same of me. And I can’t do anything about that. But I can tell you that there are few things I feel better about than finding myself challenged and enlightened by someone else’s work, whether artistic or journalistic.

When I read a NY Times headline about whether LucasFilm will continue after Star Wars and I read the story and it’s clear that Laura Holson went up there and everyone said what they had to say, I don’t mind that the story is inconclusive. But I do mind that the question of whether ILM is still a competitive business – mind you, this is from the business writer – is not engaged outside of the company she is examining. Are the various components of the company good businesses right now? Are the marketplaces too competitive if they aren’t built around this singular franchise? Or could LucasFilm grow even more powerful with Lucas out of the picture? Again, these questions don’t have to be answered. But as a journalistic effort, they have to be asked. At least, to rise to my standards for high-end journalism.

Does that make me someone on a vendetta?

The answer to Rich’s column is... Parker & Stone don’t take political sides. Sometimes people think they are arch-conservatives. Sometimes people think they are raging liberals. The same show, as Rich points out, can offer evidence of both. So why doesn’t he get the joke? Because he’s too busy raking conservatives (the forest) over the coals to bother with the truth (the trees).

But that’s just my opinion.

Those questions should have been addressed in the Lucasfilm article. For one, and I wonder if George is even aware of that his videogame company LucasArts is notorious for putting out unfinished games to meet publishing deadlines. Games that are incomplete or have software bugs.
It's the film equivalent of releasing a movie with a temp score and no color correction. No respect for games as an artform. And LucasArts does this all the time.

"I wish there is some way to communicate to him that nobody really gives a shit about calling out other Entertainment journalists on their reporting."

It's just not true.

Some people don't care about box office.
Some people don't care about film festivals.
Some people don't care about indie film.
Etc, etc, etc.

I'm David Poland and I write for all of my readers.

Fine, you're right. OTHER Entertainment journalists care when you make columns to call out the lame ones.

He Lee Tamahori's whoring just cost Todd Garner his job....Great job LEE!

All I know it, I have liked Roeper ever since he gave a positive review for the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Ebert really didn't get that movie at all. Calling it ugly, vile and contemptable was actually a compliment.

...but, whatever. I don't read any of Roeper's stuff and we don't get Ebert & Roeper in Australia so I can't really comment. When I download the reviews off their website (which is rare) he seems perfectly fine to me.

Roeper is a critic in name only. He's not very smart and has weak taste. Back when Siskel was around the great thing about their relationship was that they frequently didn't like each other very much and really challenged each other. Now it's like watching an uncle and his sycophantic nephew reviewing movies.
And Texas Chainsaw '03 was a crappy movie, and that's coming from a horror movie lover.

Personally, Joe has used some terms that I find offensive.
They pretty much piss me the fuck off. However, from
his point of view, the context in which I perceive
them. Does not necessarily represent the way he
intended them. This seems to be another time that
Joe has taken Poland's words out of context. Sure.
Poland pisses me off with his SW slagging. Yet, I
could be taking them out of context. It all comes
down to that. At least accept Poland's context though
you might disagree with it.

Besides that; can we get off the Poland, and back
to the chatter about other things?

who reads roeper anyway? because he gave a good review to texas chainsaw that means hes a good critic? that means to me hes a terrible critic.

I never said I particularly liked him (i don't even read him) it' just that he seemed to be one of the few mainstream critics who "got" Texas Chainsaw 03 and for that I like him.

But I ain't going out to buy his books, listen to his reviews and read his columns. Ya know how you can like an actor for one role... well, use that analogy.

then say that instead of making us think one thing. u said something completely different at first.

So people who didn't like the TCM remake didn't "get" it?

I was not a big fan of the new version. Does that mean I didn't get it? Am I missing something? So a critic is worthy if she likes a decent horror movie?

I 'got' TCM '03...which is exactly why I didn't like it. Nispel is a hack.

As I wrote in an article about Roeper on www.HollywoodBitchSlap.com, he’s gotten a job for which he is not qualified and which he did not earn.
It comes down to the difference between a critic and a reviewer. Roger Ebert is one of the best movie critics working. Roeper is a reviewer, and a second-rate reviewer, at that.
Critics tell why something is good or bad; reviewers merely tell you what they thought of it at the time. The first is a considered opinion, based on a depth of knowledge and a cultivated taste, with a careful explanation to compel and persuade as to the justness of the opinion expressed. The second is the overbearing carping of the blowhard around the coffeepot on Monday morning.

Every review I have ever read or heard from Richard Roeper is a gut-reaction. I have never read or heard him give any insight into the working of any movie, ever. Roeper has never pointed out something I hadn't noticed in a film, ever.

Just read "Bitch Slap." Just curious, but what exactly are your qualifications, Hank? And for that matter, do you really think Joyce Kulhawick is more qualified than Roeper? She's a second tier Mary Hart. Jealousy, jealousy, jealousy...

I really miss Gene Siskel. He was the rock on that show.

I agree. I miss Siskel, too.

I think Ebert does most of all.

It's like replacing David Poland with Harry Knowles. My little bit of comedy for you all.

Gene Siskel was down to earth guy and very direct about opinions without trying to be tiresome with sarcasm and wit (all too common these days). Siskel and Ebert were good together--neither was a movie 'snob', and they had a different style and they really did take the time to review a movie from start to finish, whether or not they 'liked' it (and I nearly always agreed with Siskel on his picks). Roeper is a little cynical for me at times even though I still enjoy watching the show when I can.

Roeper isn't half the critic Gene Siskel was. That's pretty safe to say.

It's funny how distance can make the heart grow fonder. I liked Siskel too, but saying he wasn't a movie snob is having a short memory.

He was just as much a snob as Ebert is, and probably more so. Can anyone say, "Thumbs down for 'Silence of the Lambs?'"

People always remember the arguments, but the fact is Siskel & Ebert agreed most of the time. But when they did disagree, watch out...

The thing about the show was/is two regular guys reviewing films. Here's why people get their panties in a bunch over Roeper. No matter who would have been picked, everyone would have said, "He/she doesn't deserve it, he/she's not Gene." Well, no shit.

It seems everyone knocks Roeper for not being "passionate" about film... I have no idea what that actually means. Because he doesn't agree with your tastes, or because he doesn't scream enough? Or because you weren't the one to be picked. I can't blame anyone for being jealous, it's got to be a great job...

It's been six years since Gene died. Let him rest in peace for God's sake. He's not coming back.

The show's not the same, but it's still entertaining and informative.

Just a reminder that Ebert didn't go to school to become a film critic, and neither did Siskel. They were journalists first and foremost. Same with Roeper.

Sorry, but Siskel and Ebert were both intelligent guys with reasonable opinions (most of the time).
Roeper is a moron. Sure he's a nice guy in person, but he doesn't deserve to be partnered with the most important (i.e. famous) film critic in the country.

There is nothing wrong with remembering Gene Siskel fondly or with respect (it doesn't mean Others are condemned). I don't have a 'short memory' as you remark above Bess. Maybe you never sat at the bar with him. or you weren't drinking enough.

Siskel became the Trib's movie critic within months of his first job there--doesn't matter if he 'didn;t go to school to become a film critic' per se. The kind of gut reactions he was good at aren't taught anyway. No one should be allowed to go to school to become a film critic anyway--that's where all common sense is lost and the intellect takes over and ruins everything. Where's the Movie Love? Not in a text book.

Siskel can be dead for 320 years but he still is a gold standard 'critic'...watching movies wasn't just a job it was the only thing he wanted to do.
he was a Movie-Mensch and
Not
A
Snob.

Frankly, I never ranked Gene Siskel all that highly for his specific film critiques or taste. But what was absolutely great about him was how he used to regularly mix it up with Ebert on the show. That element was what made the show so great to watch and what is so sorely missing from it now. And I'm not sure it's Roeper's fault. I suspect that, upon Siskel's passing, Ebert didn't want someone who could hog any of his newly enlarged spotlight, so a lightweight like Roeper got the call. I'd like to think that if they had chosen one of the many more established pros they auditioned like, um, Dave Poland, the show might still have a great deal more of its old sizzle.

I agree that we don't forget Siskel, but the show must go on... If not for Ebert & Roeper, the only place for legit TV film reviews is nowhere. It's all "Entertainment Tonight" fluff.

And we all saw Poland when he tried out for Ebert's show. He wasn't good. And neither was anyone else.

And my point wasn't that you had to go to film school. It was that everyone says that Roeper's not qualified, but he's just as qualified as Siskel & Ebert were when they started out. If you ever get a chance, watch some of the early years of that show, neither guy knew what they hell they were doing when it began. It took 25 years or so of experience to make them who they eventually became.

I can't agree, Bess. Roeper is absolutely NOT as qualified as Siskel or Ebert were in their early days--when it comes to knowledge of, and passion for film. Maybe Roger and Gene "didn't know what the hell they were doing" in terms of HOSTING a show, but they most certainly knew movies better than Roeper does now.

The problem I and many others have with Roeper is that he's not first and foremost a film nut, as Siskel most certainly was and Ebert is. You can see it in the way Roeper talks and in how most of his video picks of the week are recent titles, while Ebert usually goes for something older or more esoteric.

Granted, that may be purposeful, casting Ebert as the movie guy and Roeper as more of an everyday, average guy, but to me, that dynamic is not nearly as interesting as the one Gene and Roger had as equals.

I actually like Roeper's writing (i.e. his print columns), and in fairness, he has improved in the years he has been in the show. But he is not the nearly the film nut one needs to be to make that show the best it could be.

Now David Poland and Jeff Wells...THAT would be a hell of a show! ;)

"Now David Poland and Jeff Wells...THAT would be a hell of a show!"

Not since Stone Cold Steve Austin had the steel cage match with The Undertaker....

I don't want to pick on Mr Roeper becasue there seems to be few critics these days who are actually functioning as critics/analysts without use of Spoilers.

Perhaps he is in a situation that many newspeople have been put into where on live spots & on the internet, there is pressure from Some Exec to be 'snappy', 'catch attention...you only have 120 seconds' and instead of getting a proper critique or review, you get a witty diatribe or a non-informative high five on a movie or worse, a Tagline. The Whole ten Yards was a piece of shit, but Roeper's TV review was (and I paraphrase slightly) 'the best thing I can say about this movie is that it's in focus and in color'. ha ha. Now what the f*ck is the movie about please?! I think he has ability but he gives the impression of not caring much. Ebert and Siskel have/had very different styles but I still got a sense from them what a movie was about when I was a kid on limited funds.

I don;t like reading a review and at the end I still don;t know what the movie is about (without spoilers). I really don't give a shit if the reviewer likes it or dislikes it, though it is fair if they qualify their reasons for feeling thus.

Pauline Kael was a barbed smart-ass but she still reviewed movies, although she was too harsh on David Lean and Oliver Stone at times.

More reviewing/critiquing/analysis, less smart-aleck please. If I want smart aleck I read Joe-Bob Briggs or Goin to the Show with the Regular Guy or Mr Cranky.

& re. Siskel & Ebert 'not knowing' what they were doing. It was a new format and it turned into a national syndicated thing. Most critics aren't "in front of the camera" type dudes/dudettes, doesn't mean they can't learn if they care about movies enough. DPoland would have been fine in that role. Nuff said.

Apologies to "Goin' To The Show With A Regular Guy".

He is a real critic in the best sense so I don't mean to lump him in with the goofy reviews which aren't necessarily reviews 'for real'.

roeper is a lightweight

Bob: You might want to print this, and hang it on your bulletin board, or keep it in your hope chest:

Bicycle Bob:

In regard to your "roeper is a lightweight" posting: YOU ARE ABOLSUTELY FREAKIN' RIGHT.

Signed,

Joe Leydon

Lota's final point is right on the nose. Siskel and Ebert invented the format, and it's worth noting that absolutely nobody has been able to duplicate their chemistry since. (Anybody remember the insufferable Jeffrey Lyons-Michael Medved clone?) To criticize Siskel or Ebert's initial lack of experience is comparable to complaining that Edward R. Murrow or Steve Allen didn't know what they were doing either.

Lota, first of all, regarding Roeper's "It's in focus and in color" comments, anybody remember Siskel walking out of "Tommy Boy" and how proud he was of that moment, not wanting to review the film because it was so bad that he couldn't sit through the entire thing? I believe he also said in that review that he hated it so much that he lost focus on the movie and started to think about the man sitting in front of him eating candy, and how that was more interesting than the plot of the movie. And furthermore, if you really need to know more about the plot of "The Whole Ten Yards," then what the fuck are you doing on this blog to begin with? Shouldn't you be at AICN or watch E!?

Let's keep it going: Yes, S&E did create the genre, in an age and on PBS where they had time to fiddle and play with the format until it was right. It took them years to perfect it. Roeper's had 5 years to hold up his end in national syndication, which isn't an easy task these days.

I'm not arguing that Roeper is anywhere near the critic that Siskel and Ebert were in their prime, but you can't argue with the fact that he's filled a role that wasn't filled by the 30 or so critics that sat in before him, including Poland who quite frankly was boring... And he's never let his jealousy die, which makes him look pathetic.

Some people hate Ebert, some people hated Siskel, some people hate Roeper, but very few people hate people like Poland, because nobody knows who the fuck they are... It's just TV people! And call Roeper a lightweight, it's all good. I'm sure he doesn't feel light when he cashes his checks. You can all sit behind your keyboards as "serious film buffs" and talk all the shit you want. You're still watching the show.

I get that most of you who would kill for a job like the one Roeper's got. Hell, I'd kill for the job Roeper's got. But it's not as easy as it looks and any of us in the same position would be hard pressed to do as well as he's done.

Bess

"You're still watching the show."

No offense, Bess, but isn't that a rather rash assumption on your part? Might it not be true that some people, including many on this blog, continue to read and respect Roger Ebert, who continues to be a national treasure with impeccable taste in books, but no longer watch the TV program because they find Roeper wanting?

Now, as to your point about jealousy and hatefulness... well, I promised I would no longer dis Dave for his attitude toward a certain publication, so I will neither agree nor disagree with you. But, forgive me, your postings seem colored by a certain tone.. a certain attitude.. that suggests you're a not-entirely-objective observer here. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But given your willingness to toss around dubious accusations and irrelevancies (what do cashed paychecks have to do with it? Michael Medved has cashed just as many, if not more, and I defy you to call him a substantial critic), your eagerness to trash anyone who dares to disagree with you indicates you have a real or perceived personal stake in the matter.

And for the record: I myself never auditioned for the job. And I have never spent a moment wondering if I could have been better, or at least more telegenic, than any of the people who did audition. I have done television, and as a TV personality, I’m a pretty good writer.

You're right. Ebert is a treasure. I'm not debating that. And Siskel was the same.

I've been coming to this site for years and enjoy it most of the time. But when you read, "Defending Richard Roeper," and then read something that's doing the complete opposite, it down right pisses me off. Especially looking back at past columns of DPs...

I loved S&E and I love E&R and I watch every week. That's my stake. It is certainly possible that people don't watch because they think Roeper is annoying, but if they're not watching, why are they commenting? Kind of like someone who complains about politics and then admits they never voted. Maybe that's taking it a little far, but you get my drift.

Or, like I said, they gave Roeper a shot, and found him wanting. Just like some people who, say, loved “Law & Order” when Jerry Orbach was the star, and still love the show in reruns, but drifted away from watching new episodes when Dennis Farina replaced Orbach. (For the record, I think Farina is as good a replacement as anybody could have reasonably hoped, and then some, but to each his own.) Just because they stopped watching doesn’t mean they don’t or can’t still have STRONGLY held opinions about Farina, Orbach, the show itself, etc.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I know I miss the informed level of the give and take that was common during the “S&E” glory days. But I can’t argue with people who prefer (or have equal enjoyment for) a “regular guy” approach to movie reviewing. It’s a bit like, if you’re old enough, you remember when late night TV wasn’t ALL froth and fluff. When Johnny Carson might have Gore Vidal or William F. Buckley on his show – not to plug something, mind you, but just to chat – and Dick Cavett would invite John Kerry AND Kerry’s bete noire, John E. O’Neill, on the same show to debate Vietnam policies. Mind you, both guys had movie stars and pop singers and stand-up comics MOST of the time. And I liked that. But there was always the POSSIBILITY that something meaty might get discussed. Now? Well, I don’t think you’re going to have serious sociopolitical discussions on Jay Leno or David Letterman. Which is not to say Letterman and Leno are worthless. It’s just that their shows aren’t as substantial. Obviously, a lot of people feel the same way about Roeper.

In the end, I suspect, what we’re debating here is personal taste. I think brunette ladies who wear glasses are incredibly sexy. My best friend will only look at blondes who are at least a decade or two (or three) younger than he is. On some level, I’ll admit, that makes both of us shallow people. But we’ll never convince each other to change our preferences. Something similar holds true for the Roeper debate, I think.

Point taken. I concede... But it was a fun debate nonetheless!

And a damn sight more civil than most debates on this blog!

I never watched a late night show and saw anything but filler and stars promoting their recent movie or album. I guess it would be funny to watch Conan tangle with someone with half a brain.

BlueStealer: Don't you think that's part of the appeal of "The Daily Show"?

Who watches the Daily Show? They got crappy ratings.

The Daily Show gets 1.5 million viewers every night. It's the fifth highest-rated show on Comedy Central. It's no Everyone Loves Raymond but it's doing just fine.

5th highest rated show on Comedy Central is like saying the guy got a kiss. From his cousin. It's also on at 7pm. Not exactly late night television even if they do replay it at 11. Right?

Well, it's late night in MY time zone.

You may be the only one who considers Jon Stewart to be a late night talk show host. I, for one, don't. He's not Jay, Dave, Conan, or even Kimmel. He has his own great show but I wouldn't call him a late night talk show host. You can argue the point all you want but its not going to change the fact that hes not a late night talk show host. I'm sorry, Joe Leydon.

By basic cable standards, it's a successful show both ratings-wise and critically. Late night/primetime don't really count in cable.

Blu: I don't recall saying that he was. All I said, in reponse to your comment ("I guess it would be funny to watch Conan tangle with someone with half a brain"), was: "Don't you think that's part of the appeal of 'The Daily Show'?" That is, don't you think part of the appeal of that show is, at that time of night, here's a guy who does comedy (not stand-up, of course, because he's sitting down) but who nonetheless doesn't shy away from having serious conversations with politicians, journalists, etc. Maybe he's not, strictly speaking, a traditional talk show host. (By that standard, I guess PBS's Charlie Rose isn't, either.) But, then again, maybe he's a new kind of talk show host for a new era. Don't stay stuck in the past, Blu. Things change.

Leydon, you can stop kissing Jon Stewart now. His butt hurts from your butt kissing.

Ah, Fitz. We can always count on you to make an invaluable contribution to any conversation, can't we? Such wit. Such sophistication. Such a way with words. Your posts tell us so much about you.

Are you kissing Jon's butt, Joe? Is it nice?

You know, if I weren't a gentleman, I would respond: Not as nice as yours, Blu.

Blue, hows your heiney? Better than Jon Stewarts?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)