Jump to content

Saturday Night Live: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Is it really true that NBC took more control over SNL in the late 90s/early 2000s? If so, this could explain why I stopped liking the show gradually from that era on till now. I tried to sit through an episode from this season and didn't find it really funny at all. I'm not sure if its the writing, or if the performers lack comic timing to make it work?

With that said, I liked Jane, Amy, and Tina at the WU desk. Jane still has that dead pan line delivery that made her famous. I'd rather the show had employed the shark at the door bit instead of Melissa Mccarthy doing a bad impression of a Chris Farley character.. and not a fan of Emma Stone's attempt to mimic a great Gilda Radner character.

I'd rather the show had focused more on cast members and less on the guest hosts myself.

Plus, I would have included a Debbie Downer skit.

I do think Lorraine/Jane/Gilda were a strong female comedy trio.. the best teaming of female talent.. though Nora/Jan/Victoria were also a good teaming in the late 80s.. same with Ana/Molly/Cheri in the late 90s. Maya/Tina/Amy not so much.. though I loved Maya.

Lastly, i do think Leslie Jones has a lot of potential.. she just needs better writing to help support her natural comic timing.

Edited by Soaplovers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Administrator

I still watch it every week and love the show. I don't agree with people who say "it's not as good as before" because every generation says that about the new generation. SNL is always going to have funny sketches and not so funny sketches. Also, the show still churns out stars with every new group. Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones just got a huge boost when they were cast in the Ghostbusters movie. I think Taren Killum, Cecily Strong, Pete Davidson, Jay Pharoah have potential outside of SNL too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's not about sketch quality as much as laziness and toothlessness. The decision to encourage or allow actors to flub lines constantly, because this is "cute," means that no one takes it seriously, and you get huge dead spots as a result (and when the people making these flubs are not adorable puppylike pets [see: the fan hatred for Leslie Jones], viewers get very angry about it). Then there's the need to continue with "political" sketches, even though the show is terrified to write anything beyond "both sides are bad...but Democrats are a little worse." Choosing to address the Ferguson protests with an Al Sharpton joke was one of the most embarrassing, insulting moments in SNL's 40 years. If that is how Lorne Michaels sees the world, then he needs to just cut social commentary out entirely.

Speaking of social commentary, it's also embarrassing that in 2015 we are still getting LOL GAY MEN ARE ICKY AND SICK! EW THEY MIGHT KISS!! LOL OMG OMG!!!!! Why? Are they that sure that their audience is made up of bigots and fools?

The show has no idea what it is or what it wants to be. And they can fix this with minimal effort if they try. No one seems to want to try.

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven't watched regularly in years, but I do know for a fact that as recently as the last five or six years no one was saying boo to Lorne about [!@#$%^&*] in terms of serious content alteration or interference from the network, and I'm sure that hasn't changed.

He is a huge mainstay at the network, and he runs his little empire with an iron fist. He personally masterminded NBC's last late night host transition due to his heavy influence on that block, and they also leaned on him to help them through the various stages of the Leno/Conan debacle. The network does not control him, he has them at his beck and call. Lorne and Lorne alone is responsible for the musical acts, etc. being blanded out, the show being made more rote, and many, many cast and crew have gone on record about that. It's all him. NBC can't do anything.


Yeah, but you love everything.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Based on his past political donations, that helps explain the tone of the show's "humor." And the fear of diversity which he only changed somewhat after the show was dragged through the mud for a period of several years. It's a shame, as SNL, while always full of racism and sexism, once tried to be somewhat cutting edge. Now they make Mad TV seem current.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it's simply what many of the performers and writers, etc. have said - Lorne is older, he's more settled, he's less willing to rock that boat. It's easier to coast with the hottest new performer or a political skit that isn't too pointed, and not have to deal with endless drama over, say, Louise Lasser tripping out in her dressing room or Sinead O'Connor tearing up the Pope. We'd all get too old to deal with that kind of strife on a regular basis at some point.

I think Lorne is probably still pretty liberal, but it's easy when you get to be a certain age and tax bracket to be an entirely different kind of liberal, especially when you work for General Electric. I'm sure it's easy enough for him to say to himself, [!@#$%^&*] whatever safe vapid [!@#$%^&*] I put on my show, I give to Elizabeth Warren/Obama/whoever in vast amounts every year. And he's got a right to that. I just wish they had someone like Jim Downey back on those sketches if he isn't interested.

I have seen a few pretty good, pointed political sketches over the last couple years, and I do think Tina Fey and others have been a little more cutting about it. But I do think that for most of the 2000s they might as well have been doing Bob Hope's USO show. They weren't war cheerleaders, but they definitely were not willing to engage with what was actually happening with the Bush administration in any real way. Most of the media was frightened and they were too, but they were also very cozy with NBC/GE/etc. Whereas in the '80s they were just savage.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I also think the young guy they have doing some of Weekend Update - Michael Che? - is fun, and has taken some pretty sharp shots at stuff like Ferguson, etc. over the last year. But I think Lorne Michaels trying to deal with a blacker face of entertainment in 2015 is an awkward proposition at best. I'm glad they hired the performers they did and I love Leslie Jones, but I think the show seems unsure and uncomfortable with how they handle them and I think it sometimes bounces back onto their audience. Chris Rock said a month or two ago that he pointed Leslie out to Lorne, and said that Lorne Michaels would never have found someone not at one of his usual (white-dominated, more conventional) comedy haunts.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I do think NBC has suffered from the SNL type of comedy being applied to both prime time and its late night talk shows. There was a reason that the cast members were called 'Not ready for Prime time'. It was meant to be shown outside of prime-time.

If you love that type of comedy, that's great... but a lot of people I know won't even watch NBC anymore because of the SNL element invading all aspects of NBC. And I'm talking 20s, 30s and beyond.

Like I said before, I think Leslie Jones has natural comic timing, but there is only so much she can do with the lousy skits provided. I think Jane Curtain also did decent with the weekend update bit, but that was due to her abilities and not the jokes provided. Tina and Amy pale in comparison to her, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So interesting about that Bill Cosby/Jeopardy tidbit.

It's very telling that Lorne Michael was NOT responsible for hiring Eddie Murphy at SNL. And I think that fact permeates the (non) relationship between the two men.

And as funny as I find Chris Rock, he was much funnier before and after SNL. Some people claim he had trouble with the cue cards but the success of his own show on HBO IMO dispels that. The majority of the material he had to work with just didn't seem to suit his comedic impulses, he labored a lot to try to make it funny, but personally I found much of it just wasn't all that funny.

One of the reasons why I'm kind of glad Jim Carey wound up on In Living Color, not SNL. He's had some a few funny skits on his guest appearances on SNL but very few were memorable. The same cannot be said of In Living Color...I mean who doesn't recognize Fire Marshall Bill?!

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I find it hard to believe that they actually watched the same version of "Steel Magnolias" that I did. Are we sure they didn't watch the horrible re-make?    

      Please register in order to view this content

      Oh dear lord, did you have to remind me of that?!! That was definitely not Sally Field's finest hour, and Abby (Maura Tierney's character) was surely one of the most depressing characters ever written for tv or film. I'm not sure she cracked a smile even once during all her years on ER.  
    • I always thought Lois was such a unique character and considered her supporting her first run.  She was in a lot of different places on the canvas, but I don't think she had more focus than Brenda or Robin at her peak. With Ned basically out of the picture Lois doesn't quite have enough ties on the canvas to make her relevant and the show has done very little to give her new relationships and friendships.  She's stuck in the Q mansion most of the time. Oh, I agree it's a problem across the board for GH.  The only stable couples on the show are Brook Lynn/Chase and Portia/Curtis.  Unseen Olivia/Ned and Kevin/Laura are happily married I suppose.   Eventually I am sure Liz/Lucky and Dante/Lulu will get their romance, but is there any other couple that's even rootable?   I can't recall an era when Jason, Carly, and Sonny were all at such loose romantic ends at the same time.   Which is fine.  However no other romance besides Willow/Drew is being focused on.
    • https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/shortland-street-fears-speculation-grows-about-shows-future-amid-industry-struggles/T2GECWXTI5AD3AMEV46YYYUE6E/ Still a big cloud over whether the show will get another year.
    • I had hoped they'd pair her with Michael Knight. They had a nice chemistry and he's been one of the better random castings on GH. When it comes to Gio, I found the scenes with Dante to be overdone. It's obvious they're trying to set up conflict for the reveal but I don't think that was needed. It actually made me less excited for the reveal and killed any interest I had in Dante and Gio forming a bond.
    • He also lost the woman he was going to marry, under very sudden circumstances. They are probably surprised Rena has wanted to stay. I think Lois works OK in her current capacity, if they allowed her to have more of a point of view, a bit more life of her own, and not just the reason for Gio's paternity being hidden. The character always felt very thin to me and on paper this dynamic with Tracy, Brook Lyn, Gio, visits from Gloria could be better for her than how overly centered she was on the canvas the first time around. But as of now she could be better used.  Somehow the show that was revived due to supercouples seems completely alien to romance. The older cast has this hardest but even with tiers who are younger or middle-aged, they've really dragged their feet about Liz and Lucky, they have contorted themselves in trying to figure out how to pair a man with Joss, Kai and Trina barely get focus...and others I struggle to remember. They also blew up Sasha/Cody so now I guess we're meant to be waiting to see if she finds true love with Jason? The show is so hesitant and when you are this hesitant it means you are incapable of writing romance.
    • I agree.  Rena doesn't seem to mind the lighter workload and seems happy though. Strangely, a lot of the veteran cast are without viable love interests-Sonny, Nina, Lois, Jason, Tracy, Alexis, Carly (Brennan doesn't count).  The show lacks serious interest in romance.
    • I just can't wait until next week when we can go back to a full weeks worth of episodes. 3 episodes and a mid-week gap has been so difficult to deal with, especially in light of how good the show is.
    • I always hoped they'd change Parker's paternity back to Phillip.  I guess it doesn't matter since Chloe is off the show currently.  I don't recall Holly or Maggie mentioning Parker, so it's not they are close to him. 
    • I’ve reached the summer of 1998.  Until now, my impression has been that the show has steadily improved since the great quality dip of 1994, reaching as high as 8/10 in 1997. Sure, I could complain about a few things in 1997 (Claudia got wasted after her initial storyline; Thorne’s feelings for Taylor were a bit too sudden; the storyline where Sheila lived with James and Maggie while pregnant got rather boring; Mike periodically revisiting Sheila despite being on the run from authorities), but overall it was a very strong year.  I liked the Thorne/Taylor/Ridge triangle, the mystery plot about who shot Grant, the sham wedding to trap Sheila, Stephanie/Eric/Lauren, and Clarke manipulating his way back to working at Forrester. I even liked the Greenland storyline with Eric/Lauren/Rush, although I had expected to hate it. Maybe 1996 tops 1997 in raw soapy excitement (especially as Sheila got a chance to interact with a larger canvas of characters), but certain problems with overall storyline cohesion puts it somewhat below 1997 for me. Unfortunately, early 1998 has turned out to be a bit of a speedbump, perhaps on par with 1995 levels of quality: - Maggie’s character really got trashed after James left her to be with Sheila, and the early 1998 storylines where she imprisoned Sheila in the house from Psycho, or installed those wires and mikes and such in her house to make her think she’s going crazy, were total GARBAGE. So much so that the latter storyline (and Maggie with it) pretty much disappeared into a limbo.  - I have mixed feelings about the twins plotline with Lauren. No way did Rush survive being shot with a crossbow through the chest, and the romance between Lauren and Rush’s good twin brother Johnny was rather dry to me. I did however enjoy the camp aspect of Rush taking his brother’s place to be with Lauren, and Eric rescuing her. But it doesn’t appear like Bell cared too much about the Johnny/Lauren romance beyond the twin storyline gimmick, and it too disappeared in an unsatisfactory manner (come on, why not hire Johnny’s actor for just 5 more episodes for an arc where he realizes Lauren is not over Eric, or JUST SOMETHING?) - Clarke wormed his way back to FC in late 1997, which had exciting storytelling potential, but then he disappeared almost entirely. Sad to see my favorite character wasted in this manner. Does he get anything interesting to do between now and the Morgan saga of 2000-2001? - The Thomas saga was entertaining in 1997, but it got stretched out too much, and made some of early 1998 tiresome, with Ridge having to decide YET AGAIN which woman he wants to be with. On the plus side, I like the plotline of Thorne being neighbors with Macy and Grant, and we’ve finally been introduced to the SORASed Rick/Amber/CJ crowd. The Stephanie/James/Sheila triangle is also starting, and it makes me excited (I remember seeing some if it in my childhood). I know Sheila, Grant, and James are all leaving soon, which I honestly kind of dread - between them and Clarke’s near-absence, it feels like herd is going to get culled too much in the near future. But I know there’s the familiar 1999-2002 to look forward to.
    • LOL - this is a perfect description, and that's what I loved about it! May be a bit campy, but it immediately caught my attention in a good way.  I'm not familiar with the Fishing Trip storyline, I'll have to look that up. I've noticed that about Josh, which has made him less attractive to me overall. He just yells a lot when he's not happy. Wow, Reva was married to HB!  LOL - "Always... eventually, and again"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy