saturday night live

Started by sphinx, March 09, 2003, 05:38:36 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pete

well, it also had a lot to do with most of America going "awww isn't it adorable that Justin does not take himself seriously--or less seriously than we do..."  I don't think Justin was that much better, and a lot of those sketches were predicated on the idea that "man it would be so funny if the hottest pop star in America was doing this", the same with what they did to someone like Jason Priestly all those years ago.
Or when the Rock was on they'd get him to sing and play a monkey, 'cause aw shucks, that big scary man knows how to smile!
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

SoNowThen

Quote from: petethe same with what they did to someone like Jason Priestly all those years ago.

Yeah, but he had some of the funniest skits of that year. The figure-skater crashing and the Johnny Hildo ones are right up there.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ravi

Quote from: Fishbulb
In reality, it's been the supposed "actors" that have been responsible for most of the crappy episodes this season. Halle Berry did a terrible job when she hosted. Robert DeNiro also was embarassing- he just stared at the cue cards during every sketch. Colin Firth- good actor, horrible at sketch comedy. I admit that the Snoop Dogg episode was pretty poor- if anything, they didn't let him be himself ENOUGH. They should have had more fun with his persona- the sketches they wrote for him were pretty bland and didn't seem to capitalize on his talents.

Okay, then the writers also stink.

cine

I think it's time for me to chime in.

Quote from: themodernage02SNL is something terrible.  i think the switch happened when i became older than their target audience, but its more than that.
At least you can accept that you grew out of the show. You're not completely ignorant then..

Quote from: themodernage02how many freaking musical artists are they going to let host this season?  like, actors make good hosts for a reason: BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO ACT.  musical guests DONT.  aguilera, janet, timberlake, nick & jessica, snoop dogg, etc.  this is really getting ridiculous.   (also sucky: politicians, donald trump, atheletes).
I'm going to just say it: I don't know how stupid you can get with SNL thoughts, mod. Really, I want to know how much worse it gets. Are you sensing a pattern yet? Have you got the picture that SNL doesn't just have actors on?? In terms of politicians, Gore, McCain, and Sharpton were all very good and Gore was the best of those three. AL GORE. Does that click with you at all, mod?
Andy Roddick, a tennis sensation, was very good on the show too. Jeff Gordon from last year or the year before wasn't that good but the sketches were.
I don't know why you have so much hate for the musical guests hosting. I almost think you didn't watch the shows. If I never ever watched SNL in my life and I turned on the Timberlake episode, I would've sworn he was a regular cast member. He was THAT good. Just accept it, kid. The other musical guests you cried about were also very good in their own ways. When Snoop Dogg is hosting, don't expect Garth Brooks. The style of the show changes with the host. If you haven't caught on to that fact by now, watch another show because SNL is apparently too over your head.

Quote from: themodernage02here is a rule of thumb for SNL: if the host is playing themselves in more than 2 skits, THIS EPISODE SUCKS.  
Another stupid comment not even worth arguing about. There's no sense shitting on the fact that a host plays himself. That's just being entirely ignorant of the content of the writing. And it doesn't get much stupider than that..

Quote from: themodernage02the writers really need to pull in the reigns and just pick the best 2 or so skits that involve the actual persona and try to get them to do a, i dont know, CHARACTER for the other ones.
I'm not even sure why a show thats been on for nearly 30 years needs to do this when clearly their format is already working. Again, if you think it's crucial for them to play CHARACTERS after 2 sketches as themselves, then you don't comprehend the nature of the show and you should stop watching and watch something else. Because you'll never get it.

Quote from: themodernage02i know they have some good cast members, but this catering to some teen audience is really sucking the life out of this show and has been for a few seasons.
Onomato is not a teen.. so how do you explain fans like him?

Quote from: themodernage02also: weekend update should try to take a few lessons from the daily show and make fun of everyone because last nights episode was SO pro-democrat anti-republican it was a little sickening.
Hey, if they want to bash Bush and support Kerry, why do you have a problem with that? Furthermore, Jon Stewart takes jabs at Kerry but its OBVIOUS that he HATES Bush.. so the Kerry jokes always come across as teasing. Do you not notice these things when you watch comedy shows?

Quote from: RaviI did used to like SNL, but a few years ago I started finding it boring and unfunny. Maybe their target audience is younger than I thought. That would explain Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Black Eyed Peas, etc. appearing on the show as well as the inexplicable popularity of Jimmy Fallon.
Here's a reality check for everybody about the younger target audience and pop culture celebs. On CNN, you heart/read about Janet Jackson showing her breast on national television. Now answer me this.. does SNL's 'younger target audience' tune into CNN? Or would that mostly comprise of adults?
And when Britney Spears is married for 55 hours or so.. that's all over CNN too right?  So aside from the obvious pop culture explosion that despite these CNN news pieces, EVERYONE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE. Adults won't not tune into SNL because they hear Spears is hosting. And if that's the case, it doesn't matter because you know what? Spears is one of the BETTER hosts. Some of these things have to be accepted, guys.

Quote from: RaviThe first time I saw Dave Matthews Band was on SNL. I think this was before they were really popular. Whatever happened to those days?
Well Dave Matthews was a musical guest earlier this season... also your point about them hosting before they were popular is kind of odd. SNL grabs what's hot. It's always been that way and it always will be. That's the nature of the show, as I said, and people need to live with it.

Quote from: Ravi
Quote from: FishbulbI admit that the Snoop Dogg episode was pretty poor- if anything, they didn't let him be himself ENOUGH. They should have had more fun with his persona- the sketches they wrote for him were pretty bland and didn't seem to capitalize on his talents.
Okay, then the writers also stink.
Not sure what else they were supposed to capitilize on, but be that as it may, it wasn't one of the strongest shows of the year but it was still funny. You guys get WAY too picky over the show. As if it's supposed to top the previous show all the time.

Everyone also has to keep this point in mind... SNL doesn't necessarily pick the most hilarious concepts to go on television. They pick the most CREATIVE concepts. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.

And I'm finished with this.

SoNowThen

Crazed Dildo Kills Seven
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

modage

cinephile, ease up.  SNL is a comedy show.  comedy is subjective.  i watch it every few weeks out of habit and to see if its gotten any better.  the show has taken a direction i dont find very funny.  if its funny to you, then thats fine.  TO ME the show seems to be aiming at a younger audience, and therefore, the jokes are not connecting with me.  i think hosting is a chance for them to stretch out any get a chance to play different characters.  if nick and jessica are playing themselves in more than 2 sketches, that is lazy uncreative writing.  the ideas are really not flowing creatively backstage to have 5 or 6 sketches of the host poking fun at themselves.  i think if they kept that to a minimum, the show would be better.  i dont think its that ignorant of an opinion.  i dont think its ALL terrible.  but on a good show there should be more sketches that work than dont, and to me its not doing that right now.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

I think the show would be better if Jessica did it topless. But, y'know, that's just me...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cine

Quote from: themodernage02cinephile, ease up.  SNL is a comedy show.  comedy is subjective.  i watch it every few weeks out of habit and to see if its gotten any better.  the show has taken a direction i dont find very funny.  if its funny to you, then thats fine.  TO ME the show seems to be aiming at a younger audience, and therefore, the jokes are not connecting with me.  i think hosting is a chance for them to stretch out any get a chance to play different characters.  if nick and jessica are playing themselves in more than 2 sketches, that is lazy uncreative writing.  the ideas are really not flowing creatively backstage to have 5 or 6 sketches of the host poking fun at themselves.  i think if they kept that to a minimum, the show would be better.  i dont think its that ignorant of an opinion.  i dont think its ALL terrible.  but on a good show there should be more sketches that work than dont, and to me its not doing that right now.

mod, the way I see it your post was ignorance personified. Re-read some of the stuff you said.
"if the host is playing themselves in more than 2 skits, THIS EPISODE SUCKS." - obviously untrue..
"catering to some teen audience is really sucking the life out of this show and has been for a few seasons." - again.. untrue since ratings are higher now than they've been in a LONG time.
"actors make good hosts for a reason: BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO ACT. musical guests DONT." - obviously a crock of shit if you actually do watch the show.

So don't even BEGIN to defend yourself on whether you're speaking ignorantly or not... you're not a moron; you KNOW you don't know what the hell you're talking about so pleeeease spare me on the "ease up, cinephile." It's not worth it.

modage

Quote from: Cinephilemod, the way I see it your post was ignorance personified. Re-read some of the stuff you said.
"if the host is playing themselves in more than 2 skits, THIS EPISODE SUCKS." - obviously untrue..
"catering to some teen audience is really sucking the life out of this show and has been for a few seasons." - again.. untrue since ratings are higher now than they've been in a LONG time.
"actors make good hosts for a reason: BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO ACT. musical guests DONT." - obviously a crock of shit if you actually do watch the show.
1. i stand by that.  like i said, clearly the creativity is not flowing when all they can find to do with their host is rip on their celebrity for half the show.
2. ratings dont mean the shows any good.  more people may be watching now, but that doesnt mean the shows better than a few years ago.
3. sure, sometimes musical guests can be better than actors, but c'mon the musical guests as hosts has been WAY overboard.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

cine

Quote from: themodernage021. i stand by that.  like i said, clearly the creativity is not flowing when all they can find to do with their host is rip on their celebrity for half the show.
2. ratings dont mean the shows any good.  more people may be watching now, but that doesnt mean the shows better than a few years ago.
3. sure, sometimes musical guests can be better than actors, but c'mon the musical guests as hosts has been WAY overboard.
1. As i said, the show is styled around the host. This has been a common fact for a while now.
2. I'm saying that the audience its aiming to is not sucking the life out of the show because its become more creative in its writing and generating a larger fanbase. So I wouldn't call that "sucking the life out of the show."
3. If the musical guests are good then I guess it hasn't been WAY overboard, has it? Because they're good.. so who cares if there's a lot of them?

The discussion is pretty pointless now since I love the show and you don't. I have been aiming to do things career-wise that are similar to SNL and you're obviously not.  Therefore I'm going to take things personally that you spit out pretty ignorantly. So I would say this argument should probably end now or at least soon because we all know it's not going to go anywhere.

Ravi

The episode hosted by Garth Brooks was pretty funny, and he didn't always play a country singer or a cowboy.

I don't find that the live-ness of the show helps the comedy.  It doesn't necessarily hurt it, but it doesn't yield that many great spontaneous moments.  That and the show being 90 minutes long is bound to produce some filler material and sketches that are too long.  I used to think the 90s episodes were much better, but after rewatching some of them I find that they too usually are inconsistent.

QuoteHere's a reality check for everybody about the younger target audience and pop culture celebs. On CNN, you heart/read about Janet Jackson showing her breast on national television. Now answer me this.. does SNL's 'younger target audience' tune into CNN? Or would that mostly comprise of adults?
And when Britney Spears is married for 55 hours or so.. that's all over CNN too right? So aside from the obvious pop culture explosion that despite these CNN news pieces, EVERYONE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE. Adults won't not tune into SNL because they hear Spears is hosting. And if that's the case, it doesn't matter because you know what? Spears is one of the BETTER hosts. Some of these things have to be accepted, guys.

I agree that the Janet Jackson thing was overexposed on the news, but that was an extraordinary event that raised questions about decency on TV and in pop culture.  I don't know if the Spears marriage was "all over" the news.

ono

My ears are burning; I heard my name.  So I may as well chime in here.  I had worked up something a couple days ago, but didn't post it because my VCR wasn't programmed right so I didn't get to see all of the Snoop Dogg episode.  Good to hear I didn't miss much, but a shame, because he can be really funny.

I was one of the biggest dissenters when I saw the endless run of pop stars and musicians host SNL.  But looking back on the season now, I realize that the best episodes of the season were the ones with the musical guests hosting.  Those being the Timberlake and the Aguilera episodes.  I won't get into "why" now -- that's not what this is about.  But maybe it will be.  Who knows?  One other point, though - the Andy Roddick episode was great except for their constant harping on the fact that he's not an actor, and he's #1 in tennis.  And the quality of that episode was also a big surprise.

I see your complaints, though.  The Janet Jackson episode was just tired, with only one memorable sketch (you cork soaker, you).  I can't stand her, or her family, so that may explain it.  But for the most part, the episodes with actors hosting have been lackluster because these actors lack comic timing.  As much as I wanted to like Colin Firth hosting, his really wasn't that great.  He seemed so awkward and out of place all episode.  Ben Affleck proved his talent, as he always does, by killing in his episode.

And yeah, I echo the hilarity of the Garth Brooks episode.  But the "live-ness" of the episodes do help the comedy.  Case-in point, the Debbie Downer sketch from two weeks ago, or any sketch with Jimmy Fallon or Horatio Sanz in it -- especially when these two clowns are in it together.  Some may say this is unprofessional, the way they break character, but I say it really adds to the comedy, the way they play off each other, like in Jared's Room (sp?) or in that sketch a couple years back when they played proprietors of a leather clothing store, and Sanz got a snake stuck to his crotch -- forget who hosted that one.

The bottom line is the show IS better than it was a few years ago.  The Ferrell era was amazing, and last year suffered so badly in his absence.  I can only remember two highlights from last year off the top of my head: Ferrell's cameo with Britney Spears (Steve Martin made a cameo as well there, which really helped because of its randomness), and Jennifer Garner's hosting the show, which actually produced a very good episode.  This year, overall, has been great.  A few weak episodes, but many truly memorable ones.  But like Cinephile said, we love the show, you don't, so there really is no point arguing about it.

And two weeks ago with Lohan in the Harry Potter sketch will probably be the closest they'll get to a Jessica Simpson-topless episode.  That, or a revival of "Holding Your Breasts" magazine.

Pubrick

Quote from: OnomatopitaAnd two weeks ago with Lohan in the Harry Potter sketch.
do we hav any pics to illustate this point?
under the paving stones.

cine

Quote from: Pubrickdo we hav any pics to illustate this point?


Ravi

I got tired of Fallon and Sanz cracking up.  Sometimes it is funny, but it isn't rare or anything.  Is Jared's Room the one with the webcam?  I HATE that sketch.

Some of the new cast is pretty good, such as Amy Poehler and Josh Meyers, and I I like this season a little more than the previous few.  But I don't think the show is brilliant or anything.