The host of the eponymous, late-night talk show, Jimmy Kimmel Live! inadvertently created a fake celebrity feud many years ago, as a disposable line at the end of a show: Kimmel said, ‘I want to apologize to Matt Damon. We ran out of time,’ a premise that was funny, because Matt Damon was an “A-list actor” whom no talk show would ever “bump” from its lineup.
That bit, which he has repeated many times over the years, has sparked a number of entertaining components, including:
An appearance Damon made on the show in 2006, in which Kimmel shared a long introductory clip of all the times he had performed the “. . .ran out of time” bit, such that, when Damon actually made it to the set, Kimmel cut short the interview after only a few seconds; Damon exited angrily, yelling “Go f*** yourself!” as he left.
Damon teamed up with Kimmel’s girlfriend, Sarah Silverman, in 2008 to produce a video, which the Rule of Three Legal Department will not allow us to describe in any way, shape, or form (Ed. note: If you Google “Jimmy Kimmel and Sarah Silverman and Matt Damon, you will no doubt stumble across this hilarious video, but, be forewarned, it is “NSFW” (“Not Safe for Work”).
Kimmel mounted his own video response, which is also quite funny, and is also quite “NSFW”.
Damon filled-in as guest host of the show in 2013, while Kimmel was tied to a chair, renaming the show, “Jimmy Kimmel Sucks!,” and played clips of Kimmel supposedly auditioning for the same acting roles secured by Damon over the years, suggesting that the feud was fueled by jealousy.
As Damon appeared on the show, as a member of the The Monuments Men cast, albeit seated in an uncomfortable stool away from the rest of the cast, Kimmel posed a question to him, at which time a fire alarm sounded, ending the segment.
In 2015 the pair attempted couples counseling (screenshot pictured above), which, thankfully, didn’t put an end to the bit.
Damon snuck onto the set, inside Ben Affleck’s really large coat, but, once discovered, was ejected by Kimmel.
At the Oscars in 2017, Kimmel roasted Damon, criticizing his We Bought a Zoo performance, and personally conducted the orchestra to play over Damon speaking on stage.
So, why the recounting of the Jimmy Kimmel/Matt Damon saga, you might ask? Well, Rule of Three finds itself in a similar awkward situation, inasmuch as a dedicated reader of the award-winning weekly column, who is also a longtime personal friend, has mounted a pressure campaign, with the goal of securing publication of a column devoted to the topic of monkeys. That’s right, monkeys. . .
This dedicated reader, whom we will call Mike (because, that’s his name) seized upon a disposable line contained in a recent Rule of Three column, entitled, “Water, Water, Everywhere. . .” which noted that there was a monkey pictured in Georges Seurat’s iconic painting, “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte,” and whimsically suggested a future column about monkeys. A link to that column is helpfully included here. . .
Naturally, we turned to the Rule of Three Legal Department (yes, the same one that won’t allow us to describe Sarah Silverman’s very funny video in any way, shape, or form - you’d be surprised how busy that team can be) for advice regarding this brewing issue.
Speaking of brewing issues, why not subscribe right now to Rule of Three? The Legal Department asks that we make clear with you that our use of the term "brewing" here, and any subsequent uses of the term, whether in past, present, or future tenses, in no way creates a verbal agreement or commitment to publish a future column on the topic of home-brewing activities. In order to avoid potential future litigation, simply click the button here - it's free! They suggested a number of legal remedies, including five different types of writs: Habeas Corpus; Mandamus; Certiorari; Prohibition; and Quo Warranto. None of these writs seemed appropriate in this case, due primarily to the fact that our three years of high school Latin didn’t cover these terms.
We explored other legal solutions, including: an injunction; an intervention; incarceration; medication; retribution; contributions; subterfuge; centrifuge; center-cuts; a stakeout; a cookout; a lookout; the butterfly effect; higgs boson; and Calvinism. Again, we felt that none of these defenses would stand up in court. And, upon closer examination, some of them were not really legal defenses at all.
Another potential solution was AI: ChatGPT could spit out an award-winning column on monkeys in the time it would take you to say, “ChatGPT could spit out an award-winning column on monkeys.”
In the end, however, we determined that perhaps Mike was right: monkeys might indeed be an excellent topic to tackle in a Rule of Three column. We therefore reluctantly acceded that channeling this misguided legal research energy into actually crafting a column on monkeys was the appropriate remedy. Without further ado. . .
A Rule of Three Exclusive!
“A Barrel of Monkeys”
Fun? You bet!
We’re often amused when we see monkeys, whether at the zoo, or in a beloved children’s book, or in a classic science fiction movie. That’s because the behavior exhibited by monkeys is unpredictable, and. . .oh, my goodness, my editor is telling me that we’ve run out of space allocated for this week’s column - I’m afraid we’re going to have to resume this piece next week - my apologies for not completing the task. . .Mike. See you next week! WWJD!
I hope you've enjoyed this week's Rule of Three column - please come back next week to read the thrilling conclusion to the piece on monkeys. In fact, click the button here, and you'll be sure not to miss it - it's free!
I am patient and , still, anxiously await the monkey column. I am not monkeying around either.
Retribution isn't a legal defense, but I have a feeling that Mike might be seriously considering it.