Why does everyone think he was so amazing Any Forums? Everyone acts like Letterman was incredible...

Why does everyone think he was so amazing Any Forums? Everyone acts like Letterman was incredible, on the level of an artist, even saying he was a 'genius'.
Explain

Attached: index.jpg (139x186, 6.1K)

Who's saying that.I liked Leno and I believe he was more popular than Letterman. I now enjoy Colbert and think he;s a genius.

He was a breath of fresh air in the early 80s. Instead of the boring predictable kiss-the-guests-ass style of late night shows, he acted like he didn't give a fuck.

A lot of people seem to despise Leno in comparison to Letterman, Leno is a guy it's 'cool' to hate, apparently Leno used to be more edgy and people considered him a sellout and all this.

Letterman was actually extremely concerned of his image and popularity, at one point having a breakdown on stage where he started beating up a puppet 'Letterman' doll in a chair and ended up leaving the venue after only 20minutes.

Maybe in the 80s he was better, but after that try watching any of his intros and imagine it without the canned laughter. Unfunny 'jokes' delivered like he wants the whole thing to be over with, and not in an ironic way by the looks of it.

Because his show was entertaining. And because he would never have never used his platform to suck the dick of the pharmaceutical industry by staging a song-and-dance number with men dressed as syringes.

I know what you mean. I mean I like him and respect him very much, and there's a number of great interview moments from over the years but I've watched some of the like "classic clips" from before my time and it just doesn't ring my bell the way that some people talk about. One part must be that you gotta take all that stuff in context, like what was going on around the show when it was in its heyday. There were less channels and less media in general. And he built something to rival The Tonight Show from scratch, that's a feat.

But another is like that famous saying. Greatness is when everything that came before you is obsolete, and everything that came after you bears your mark. He's clearly hugely influential and so the sense of humor kind of just slips into the DNA of the comedy that came after him, you less appreciate what made him remarkable. And while there's some magic-spark that I'm missing for his early work, that it holds up at all is a testament, whereas Johnny Carson does ab-so-lutely nothing for me.

Iunno, I'm a Conan guy.

side note, check out The Larry Sanders Show for a pretty funny look at talk shows in the 90s. Dave even makes a cameo.

that's another one people say is great-with-a-capital-G but didn't do much for me. I guess I didn't give it a very firm try, didn't make it past season one.

The laughter wasn't canned. It was a studio audience. Do you remember how to laugh, OP?
I'll just put it this way: you're in the minority if you think Letterman wasn't funny. Now I'm not sure if it's because you have a different sense of humor or you're just being an edgy zoomer contrarian.

Because he brought absurdist humor to late night TV. At that time most of the “comedy” on Late night was variety show style, Sonny and Cher level cringe crap.

test

>now enjoy Colbert and think he;s a genius.
Enjoy what you like, of course, but Colbert's far from a genius. He was pretty solid back in the 00s, but like so many Hollywood types, he lost his fucking mind when Trump got elected. It has been a serious detriment to his comedy.

yeah comedy has evolved since then, so it can feel a little slow

>The laughter wasn't canned. It was a studio audience.
A studio audience given 'please laugh' signs. I've read former audience members saying the way it basically works is they get a 'hype man' out first before the show starts to get into the mood and tell them we need loud laughter and such to set the tone. I'm sure all the shows do this, it doesn't make Lettermans 'jokes' funny though.

Do you think anyone would be laughing at his opening monologues on their own?

>'ll just put it this way: you're in the minority if you think Letterman wasn't funny. Now I'm not sure if it's because you have a different sense of humor or you're just being an edgy zoomer contrarian.

Not a zoomer and I've seen genuinely funny people praise letterman which makes it more ridiculous. Letterman became an incredibly powerful figure, getting on Letterman was a huge boost to the careers of many so there was no reason for people to badmouth him.
Similar is true for Joe Rogan, Rogan is incredibly unfunny but everyone just has to pretend they 'respect' him because of his show.

Also I don't think it's true that he didn't 'kiss the ass' of his guests, for the early days maybe that was the case but a lot of his interviews are really nothing to write home about and he had plenty of asskissing if it was someone important enough on the show. This part is backed up by those who worked for him, saying he craved validation of the elite. He was apparently an all around terrible man to deal with for his staff with a giant ego.

Not to say that late night TV is full of wonderful interviewers but that's really the point I'm making. The fact that Letterman is considered a 'genius' is partly due to the fact that the bar is set low to start with. Marginal talents are given so much attention that they start to appear bigger and better than they really are.

I thought Craig Ferguson was genuinely funny a lot of the time and didn't seem craven and irritable like Letterman.

If you don’t understand the subtle genius of his humor, then it’s your own failing, user

This all reminds me of a few months ago when people were asking why did people think Steve Martin was funny. Same reason I believe is they were both so different for the time they were in.

>whereas Johnny Carson does ab-so-lutely nothing for me.
Carson used to talk to his guests in a friendly conversationalist way rather than what we think of as an 'interview' now. It wasn't an edgy show but he usually made his interviewees feel comfortable and that in itself was a skill and made for sometimes compelling viewing. It's old and dated now but I'd prefer to see Carson than some goons like Fallon.

Sure, that makes sense to me. I like Dick Cavett a lot but that's quite a different kind of talk-show.

Back in the 70s or 80s Carson had on a guest who was just a regular Joe. The guy was old, made his living as a farmer somewhere in the Midwest. I have no idea how he came to Carson's attention, maybe he had written into the show or something, but Carson had him on. It was neat to see someone like him on the show. I don't think late night shows are like that anymore. It's just whatever celebrity the goyim are supposed to be seal clapping for this week.
G0YKH

Letterman was ok for his time. But his stuff is dated. His off the beaten path routine had merit and he hosted some pretty memorable shows (Andy Kaufmann vs Jerry Lawler e.g.), but after awhile he became the straight man for whomever was on his show. If they weren't funny - he wasn't funny. He was more hip than Carson but kind of ehhh by a historical measuring stick. I think we all just got jaded eventually. Same old same old.

he was consistently pretty funny.
not hilarious or over the top.
but pretty funny.

I think Martin was a true comic genius. His timing and content really worked a crowd. He was truly a "wild and crazy guy". He also wrote for several shows of his time (Laugh In, SNL) and could play "family" or bawdy. Pretty good in some movies too. Had a great range. Think he eventually got a little tame, but that kinda happens with age and when you become the de facto comic or goto guy.