Jimmy Fallon debuts to mixed reviews but great ratings
Jimmy Fallon debuted late Monday night on NBC to mixed reviews, but he earned the network the best ratings in that timeslot for three years. Against CBS rival Craig Ferguson of "The Late Late Show" he was ahead by 35%. And versus the last half of "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on ABC, this Jimmy had the edge by 17%. Jimmy Fallon replaced Conan O'Brien, who left "Late Night" and New York City behind to take over L.A.-based "Tonight Show" from Jay Leno in June.
Most critics gave Jimmy Fallon a passing grade for his first show, and none of his notices rivalled the savage reviews that greeted Conan O'Brien when he took over from David Letterman in 1993. Back then Conan O'Brien was a relatively unknown entity who had made his name, such as it was, as a writer for "Saturday Night Live" and "The Simpsons." It was "SNL" boss Lorne Michaels who gave Conan O'Brien the job.
And Lorne Michaels was the one to pick Jimmy Fallon -- another "SNL" alum -- to take over now. Since Fallon left that once-a-week gig in 2004 after a successful six-year run, he has starred in several movies that struck out ("Taxi," "Fever Pitch"), but he continued to hit home runs in his stand-up gigs. Perhaps when Fallon readjusts to performing on TV, he will find the right rhythm for the show. Indeed Robert Lloyd of the Los Angeles Times concluded his critique by noting that, "In Fallon's defense, if he needs one, this is a form that develops in the fullness of time, as chances are taken and limits tested and you learn the things you can learn only in the doing, night after night after midnight."
Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly hopes, "Maybe pretty soon, he'll relax a bit and make some spontaneous, amusing noise himself." Even the curmudgeonly Tom Shales of the Washington Post thought, "though his opening night had disappointments, none were crushing or looked potentially fatal. Once Fallon relaxes, hunkers down and lightens up, the new 'Late Night' could win over many a semi-conscious heart and mind." Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune sounded the most cautionary note warning, "unless Fallon calms down a great deal, it's hard to see the new version of 'Late Night' being part of the pre-bedtime ritual for Conan's old crowd."
However, it would take Conan O'Brien three years — and the on-air blessing of David Letterman — before he earned his first Emmy nod. He and his team of writers competed every year from 1996 and finally won the Emmy Award in 2007. But it would not be till 2003 that the show competed for best variety series. It went on to lose five consecutive bids to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" before being snubbed once again last fall. Conan O'Brien never competed in the individual performance category. Jimmy Fallon has never vied for an Emmy in any category, but he is 0 for 11 at the Teen Choice Awards.
Photos: NBC
Did Jennifer Aniston snicker when Brad lost the Oscar for best actor?
Quiz: What Oscars champ also won the Nobel Prize?
Get Gold Derby on Twitter. Join the Gold Derby Group at Facebook. Become friends with Tom O'Neil on Facebook. Get Gold Derby RSS feed via Facebook. RSS Feedburner. RSS Atom.
The ratings stats are kinda sad, nothing against Jimmy Fallon but Craig Ferguson had Archbishop Desmond Tutu on last night. Says a lot more about the audience than the shows (and, yes, Bishop Tutu was entertaining)
Posted by: anita | March 05, 2009 at 09:06 AM
The only....and I mean only good thing about this Late Night version si the fact that the LEGENDARY ROOTS CREW are backing this bozo the clown up.
Posted by: Will | March 04, 2009 at 09:21 PM
The show was pretty awful. Fallon seemed nervous and stiff and even when he dropped a good line, he looked like a deer in the headlights, not knowing what to do next. The only redeeming quality was The Roots, but they are so much more talented than him!
Posted by: Wow | March 04, 2009 at 03:50 PM
I LIKE Jimmy Fallon. He is a "very" polite guy & usually very funny in private. i think HIS writer team is bit off & HE HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO KNOW HOW THE CROWDS OF PEOPLE ACT IN CERTAIN WAYS IN THIS LATE NIGHT SHOWS JUST YET. IN ANOTHER WORDS, CONNAN O'BRIAN KNOWS THE CROWDS BETTER & BIGGER, TALLER & FUNNIER...EHHH YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WTF? LOL ;)
WELL, NOBODY TREAT MR. Robert De Niro LIKE THAT.... YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? ; ) I'M TELLING YOU... SIMPLY, IT WAS JUST BIT OFF. MUST HAVE WORK WITH CROWDS BEFOR HE SHOWED UP. I COULDN'T BELIEVE MY EYES, MAN. JIMMY? DON'T FAKE THE ATTITUDE ON RESPECTS.
2ND SHOW WAS MUCH BETTER. JIMMY LOST BIT OF HIS RESPECT TOWARDS TO THE MAYER OF NEW YORK IN A SEGMENT. I COULD TELL HIS TONE OF HIS VOICE. JOHN VON JOVI SHOWING WAS GREAT. HAPPY BIRTH DAY! JOHN. YOU ROCK. TINA FAY WAS GREAT ALSO. HOWEVER, OVERALL, STILL LUCK TEMPO IN THE SHOW. I MUST SAY CONNAN STILL HOLDS WINNING SEAT (ME). JIMMY, WE ALL KNOW YOU R ONE OF THE GREATEST & U R VERY FUNNY. JUST WORK ON IT . BECAUSE, WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU CAN DO MUCH BETTER FOR SURE. COMOM... MAN. YOU CAN'T EVEN BEAT CONNAN'S WORST DAY ? GOOD LUCK. JUST "FLOOR" THE PEDAL WITH GREAT RESPECTS TO EACH EVERY GUESTS IN A SHOW . I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT.
Posted by: the chair | March 04, 2009 at 03:10 PM
The huge split, when it comes to the reviews, is awesomely fascinating. The press (and press-like coverage) seems to be, largely, understanding of the incubation period needed for a late night show. Viewers, however... not quite as understanding.
http://omgyg.tumblr.com/post/83521435/having-a-hard-time-fallon-in-love
Posted by: omgyg | March 04, 2009 at 11:15 AM
The show was horrible and will continue to be as Jimmy Fallon is not funny and not entertaining. Just watching him is painful as he is scatterbrained. The only reason his ratings were so high was simply due to it being his first show and people wanted to check it out.
Posted by: Sgt-X | March 04, 2009 at 05:58 AM
I am so disappointed in all the bad reviews from fans. I did not think his show was that bad. It was obvious that he's new at this, but all in all I think he did a good job and people need to give him a chance!
Posted by: mary | March 03, 2009 at 08:38 PM
Why no mention of Fallon's 2003 Grammy nomination for Best Spoken Comedy Album?
Posted by: Professor Chaos | March 03, 2009 at 08:34 PM
Maybe he will improve, but I though his first show was pretty bad overall. He seemed really nervous, most of his jokes were horrible, the $10 lick an item segment was painful to watch (meaning it was so boring and un-entertaining). The interview segments were pretty good, but that's it. I would give the show a D-.
Posted by: TJ Spyke | March 03, 2009 at 07:15 PM