Saturday Night Live

[mrsman]

Given the time of my posting, this is on my mind:

Saturday Night Live is not nearly as funny as it was in years past.  In fact, I only tend to watch the first segment.

It bothers me that SNL starts at 11:30 PM ET when the late night shows start at 11:35 PM ET on weeknights.  I tend to forget this, so SNL should be moved 5 min later and the local news on Sat night should be extended by 5 min as it is on weeknights.

And given that many of the skits are a bust, the show should probably be 60 min instead of 90 min.

[english si]

It's only still going as a cultural phenomenon, surely?

Not that it is easy to churn out 45 minutes of topical comedy on a weekly basis and then perform it live, with tons of costume changes. The format kills the show, but when you have truly exceptional comedians (rather than 'mere' very high quality ones) they can make it better than mediocre. But watch (pretty much any of) them in a half-hour comedy or a film, and you can see how much better they can be when they are allowed to reach their potential.

[triplemultiplex]

In my opinion, SNL has always been hit or miss with their sketches.  That was true when I first started watching in the mid 90's. It was true in the 00's.  It's the same today.

I continue to watch (when I remember) because you never know quite what to expect.  They are working on a very short time table, so there are no rewrites or punch ups like with most scripted comedy.  One quick rehearsal and they're on.  It means some crazy stuff makes it to air because it was super funny to a bunch of sleep-deprived writers and actors at the time, then it just flatlines live.

One of those things that tends to flatline is the interruptions to Weekend Update.  Just when you're getting on a role with jokes on news stories, suddenly it's 4 minutes of someone playing an annoying character.  Not all of them are bad (I like Bobby' Moynihan's 'Drunk Uncle' for example), but many are.

[wxfree]

It may be that their juvenile sense of humor is less appealing as people get older.  I still like the show.  I haven't grown up and become more sophisticated as much as most people do, and I still enjoy the juvenile humor.

The occasional failures are part of the show's charm.  Putting together the show in a week and performing it live are not ways to produce a consistent product.  Great television is not made that way.  SNL isn't meant to be great; it's meant to be mostly good but also not care about acting mess-ups and bad editorial judgement slipping through.  Along with the childish jokes, that's part of the charm and energy of the show.

[nexus73]

Once the original cast of SNL was gone, I quit watching it. 

Rick

[Rothman]

I'm still scratching my head over someone complaining about a five-minute difference.

[Ophidian14]

If I'm not mistaken, SNL actually starts at 11:29PM.

Also Tim are you there.

[jeffandnicole]

Guaranteed, SNL was better 10 years prior.  Does not matter what year you are talking about, it was better 10 years prior.  If this was 2016, it was better in 2006.  If it's 2006, it was better in 1996.  The shows in 1990 sucked compared to 1980, and so on.

And no matter what, whenever a key comedian leaves the show, it will never be the same again, and there's really no point in watching it ever again.  Been that way for 40 years.

[Rothman]

Guaranteed, SNL was better 10 years prior.  Does not matter what year you are talking about, it was better 10 years prior.  If this was 2016, it was better in 2006.  If it's 2006, it was better in 1996.  The shows in 1990 sucked compared to 1980, and so on.

And no matter what, whenever a key comedian leaves the show, it will never be the same again, and there's really no point in watching it ever again.  Been that way for 40 years.

Baloney.  SNL in the 1990s was degrees better than anything during those dank Joe Piscopo years.

[Pete from Boston]

It's only still going as a cultural phenomenon, surely?

Not that it is easy to churn out 45 minutes of topical comedy on a weekly basis and then perform it live, with tons of costume changes. The format kills the show, but when you have truly exceptional comedians (rather than 'mere' very high quality ones) they can make it better than mediocre. But watch (pretty much any of) them in a half-hour comedy or a film, and you can see how much better they can be when they are allowed to reach their potential.

The key word is "live."  If their potential requires multiple takes and months of production, it's different potential than SNL is going for.

I don't watch enough at this point to have a strong opinion, but the longevity of the format and people's attention to the show says that if its mediocre, its mediocrity is at a level people are ok with.

I'm still scratching my head over someone complaining about a five-minute difference.

Right?

[Ian]

I don't know, I very much enjoy the comedic style of Kate McKinnon.

[ET21]

I'm still scratching my head over someone complaining about a five-minute difference.

It could mean the difference between quickly going to the bathroom before the show starts and holding it in until the first commercial break.

On that note, anyone else notice they run way too many commercial breaks during SNL? I think we get only 30 mins of comedy and 30 mins of shitty late-night ads

[Rothman]

I'm still scratching my head over someone complaining about a five-minute difference.

It could mean the difference between quickly going to the bathroom before the show starts and holding it in until the first commercial break.

*blinks*

Evidently, people put more thought and planning into their TV watching than I do.

[english si]

The key word is "live."  If their potential requires multiple takes and months of production, it's different potential than SNL is going for.

Sure, but even "live" can be better if there isn't a shitty writing process and a desire to do as many costume changes as possible.

I don't watch enough at this point to have a strong opinion

I've only watched "this is a really good sketch" videos and found them massively underwhelming.

but the longevity of the format and people's attention to the show says that if its mediocre, its mediocrity is at a level people are ok with.

Sure, but then people will watch any old rubbish! Especially late at night. My point was that the show still survives, especially wrt cultural capital, due to tradition and inertia, rather than quality.

[mrose]

Here it starts at 10:35, but I'm in the mountain time zone so I get it on a delay.

My feeling is that maybe 10-15 percent of it is funny and the other 85-90 percent is garbage.... I guess I feel like it is still worth it, although I feel like these days it is really all dependent on who is hosting. A good host will lift the entire thing, while a bad one will pretty much sink it. And don't even get me started on the... ahem... "music".

I think the problem they have right now is there are too many people on it and they could probably afford to cut 15 minutes off of it. What they really should do is make the sketches all shorter, since most of them are so predictable that you get the running joke within 20 seconds anyway.

One of those things that tends to flatline is the interruptions to Weekend Update.  Just when you're getting on a role with jokes on news stories, suddenly it's 4 minutes of someone playing an annoying character.

This x 1000. One is okay, but they have to do three or four per episode now.

[thenetwork]

Same goes with their musical guests:  For every good artist one week, there are two weeks of artists that are either, "Who the **** are they?", or some group you cant understand because they play too loud.  The rap groups all sound the same -- like doo-doo.

[yanksfan6129]

I'm still scratching my head over someone complaining about a five-minute difference.

It could mean the difference between quickly going to the bathroom before the show starts and holding it in until the first commercial break.

On that note, anyone else notice they run way too many commercial breaks during SNL? I think we get only 30 mins of comedy and 30 mins of shitty late-night ads

It's a live show. The commercial breaks are long because the cast needs to put on new costumes and the crew has to change the entire set.

[briantroutman]

Though I had known of it for years, I had never actually watched an episode of SCTV until a few days ago, and now I'm absolutely hooked–I'll have to buy the DVD sets.

In my opinion, it's much funnier than even the better output from Saturday Night Live's classic eras.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm still scratching my head over someone complaining about a five-minute difference.

It could mean the difference between quickly going to the bathroom before the show starts and holding it in until the first commercial break.

On that note, anyone else notice they run way too many commercial breaks during SNL? I think we get only 30 mins of comedy and 30 mins of shitty late-night ads

It's a live show. The commercial breaks are long because the cast needs to put on new costumes and the crew has to change the entire set.

I didn't think the commercials are longer than any other show's commercials.  There are about 3 or 4 areas where the sets are located, and most of them are ready to go prior to the show.  The only real long commercial break is oddly near the end, usually before or after the musical act's final song. 

[SP Cook]

The original SNL was the most funny thing I have ever seen.

The next two or so follow on (leaving out the disasterous second crew) crews were OK.  Since then it is just a smug and sanctimonious group of coastal liberal elites making fun of the ways and values of the rest of the country.  Not funny, not entertaining, not important.

[cl94]

SNL has been consistently sinking since the Dana Carvey cast left and has been unwatchable since Bill Hader left. From watching old episodes, it was the best with the original cast. Eddie Muprphy/Joe Piscopo were great, as were the late 80s-mid 90s. This week was the best episode I've seen in years and only because of Larry David (which is the only reason I watched). The Weekend Update interruptions are annoying as hell. Just go back to how it was with Aykroyd and Curtin.

[thenetwork]

Eddie, Joe and Billy Crystal is what saved SNL and the Dick Ebersol-era from getting cancelled.  Lorne Michaels had kept the show more-or-less afloat since his return in the mid-80s.  There are the hit-and-miss cast members, as well as the writers who if they don't produce good skits or recurring characters for the cast, they are usually gone by the end of the season.

Unfortunately, the tradition is that once you get a movie deal or 2 under your belt, you leave SNL and usually while in your prime on the show.  Keenan Thompson has yet to get that memo, though. (What's Up With That?).

One running tradition on SNL since the 70s has been whenever they do live 'remote' camera shots in the hallways of 30 Rock, there is always a Las Vegas-costumed dancer and/or an Abe Lincoln character that do passive cameos in those scenes.

[Rothman]

Keenan Thompson has yet to get that memo, though. (What's Up With That?).

Has he had that many outside-of-SNL opportunities?  Seems like a steady job for him, like it was for Darrell Hammond.

[Pete from Boston]

Keenan Thompson has yet to get that memo, though. (What's Up With That?).

Has he had that many outside-of-SNL opportunities?  Seems like a steady job for him, like it was for Darrell Hammond.

I saw Fat Albert on an airplane.  Fortunately for all aboard, I was not in an exit row.  I suspect it was not a great launching point for a lucrative film career.

[Rothman]

Keenan Thompson has yet to get that memo, though. (What's Up With That?).

Has he had that many outside-of-SNL opportunities?  Seems like a steady job for him, like it was for Darrell Hammond.

I saw Fat Albert on an airplane.  Fortunately for all aboard, I was not in an exit row.  I suspect it was not a great launching point for a lucrative film career.

Heh.  True 'nuff.