PTBoardOp94 said:
SNL was the highest-rated show on NBC during the February sweeps--when the network finished below Univision.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Bill Hader leaving Saturday Night Live
- Thread starter WMC2006
- Start date
SNL was the highest-rated show on NBC during the February sweeps--when the network finished below Univision.
Kent said:
No, but it worked very well a year later with Dick Ebersol. And in 1985 when Lorne came back. And 1995 when Lorne once again flushed everything and re-started.
Other than the original cast, obviously, SNL's best seasons critically were 1982-1983, 1986-1987, and 1996-1997. Each time it was a year after nearly all the cast and writing staff were disposed of. Get fresh blood in, cut the dead weight, re-think and re-invent the show.
I hate the trope that SNL will never be as funny as it once was- its revionist history at best. Every season has had its hits and misses and you can't produce 22 or 24 ninety minute episodes of sketch comedy without being strongly uneven from time to time.
When Justin Timberlake hosted and they did the sketch with Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd playing the wild and crazy guys, JT and Andy Samberg were head and shoulders above both Martin and Aykroyd with their characters- and one of them isn't even a comedian.
I know people like to remember the "good old days" but any compilation of SNL sketches from a given era suggests that there are just as many failures as there successes.
When Justin Timberlake hosted and they did the sketch with Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd playing the wild and crazy guys, JT and Andy Samberg were head and shoulders above both Martin and Aykroyd with their characters- and one of them isn't even a comedian.
I know people like to remember the "good old days" but any compilation of SNL sketches from a given era suggests that there are just as many failures as there successes.
justpassingthough said:
I agree with you in part. Yes - the original cast, and the later great early casts of the 80s and early 90s (I don't remember dates well) had some excellent shows, but there were occasional duds among the gems.
Where I disagree is consistency. If you tuned in an SNL show in those exalted eras, there was a very good chance you would see a very funny show...with maybe a bad sketch or two mixed in. The last couple of years, the shows are consistently bad, with the occasional gem, like the Timberlake show. The sketch last year with Jason Sudekis playing Joe Biden, who had an imaginary friend" living in his closet that turned out to be Geroge W. Bush (Will Ferrell) was pee-in-your pants funny. But those skits are few and far between.
To me, there is nothing wrong with the cast - they are all talented - Taren Killem could be a break out star. To me, it all gets back to the writing, which IMO - generally sucks. And the biggest problem with the writing is the editing. They don't seem to do any. Those awful sketches just drag on and on and on...and on...and on...
I've always wondered what part of this is generational. I started watching in the 90s when I was a teenager, mostly after the departures of the early 90s cast like Mike Myers and during the tenures of Will Ferrell, Cheri Oteri, etc and still watch to this day, now that I'm in my early 30s. Could be that being the same age as the comedians and their worldview and their takes on current events and politics influence how funny one finds topical humor shows like SNL?
I'm not saying there aren't horribly written sketches that drag on and on and on, but I would have to think that a part of you finds humor from your generation more endearing than I would and vice versa.
I'm not saying there aren't horribly written sketches that drag on and on and on, but I would have to think that a part of you finds humor from your generation more endearing than I would and vice versa.
justpassingthough said:
I'll give that some thought, but my immediate response is to say that's not a factor. I watch a lot of current comedy (stand-up and sketch comedy) and find it funnier, if anything, than comedy from my generation as a young adult - the 70s and 80s.
I'm a big fan of the Daily Show and Colbert - and I'm finding Amy Schumer's new show pretty funny.
Lkeller said:
"Inside Amy Schumer" is hysterical, even if I feel bad for laughing at 80% of what gets said, but a certain part of comedy is shock value and you have to follow down the rabbit hole seeing as we live in a world where the envelope for what is appropriate continues to get pushed farther and farther.
Back to SNL, though, perhaps part of what I've said above also applies to SNL. I imagine it was more groundbreaking in terms of what they got away with in the earlier days than it is today. Sure, its also been on broadcast but it probably pushed the envelope more back then than it does today, so its viewed as somewhat staid and safe. Could that be another factor that influences how people reflect fondly on the bygone era of SNL?
Going by the last sketch, I think it was strongly hinted that Fred Armisen and Jason Sudekis are leaving. It's strange that I didn't actually tune in this weekend for Ben Afleck since, to be honest, he's never been one of my favorite actors. I tuned in since 1-it would be the last new show until September and 2-with the knowledge that Bill Hader was doing Stefon on Weekend Update. That was easily the best part of the entire show. Period. Who else could do that slowed-down roundhouse punch attempt like Anderson Cooper? 
1069_KIFR said:
...and brings in more viewers, assuming the act is a popular one, and it usually is. Plus they can often get the musical guests to participate in a sketch or two. The musical guests are not going anywhere.
Been watching the first 2 seasons on Netflix. Back then they would allow a stand up commedien to do some their own routines during the show (George Calin, Lili Tomlin, and Richard Pryor) and to give the players a break. Additionally, they had more than one musical guest. I think this helped in that they did not have to write as many sketches, and the sketches were of more quality.
The first few years of SNL did push the envelope, since it was basically a TV version of National Lampoon. You had sketches like "The Claudine Longet Ski Invitational"--which NBC actually had to apologize for on-air, presumably to avoid a major lawsuit; and you had notorious Weekend Update items like the murder of entertainer Prof. Backwards--his last words were "pleh, pleh"justpassingthough said:
Plus, one of the SNL books noted that when the show started, Lorne Michaels didn't want to do sketches with recurring characters--until he found out how much money could be made from them. He also didn't want sketches like those on Carol Burnett, where the characters are unable to refrain from laughing while saying their lines--but he later had no problem with people like Jimmy Fallon and sketches like "The Californians."
Finally, Dick Ebersol should get credit for saving SNL in the early 80's, but he also softened it up by having hosts that the earlier incarnation of Lorne Michaels never would have had on--Joan Rivers, Don Rickles and other standard variety show regulars.
With Bill Hader and Fred Armisen gone (and probably Jason Sudeikis once he decides...if he's going to), what would SNL do to fill the cast?
Personally, they need to find a bunch of stronger male cast members to complement the ones who are coming back. I see on the message boards people keep suggesting James Adomian and others to join the show. Then again, it's up to Lorne as to who's a good fit with SNL. He's not going to pick somebody because people on the internet think he or she is good.
Also, they really need to have a black female in the cast. I know they tried to go after Kali Hawk, but she said no and trashed the show in an interview. I don't think they'll go after her again after that. She was cast in the "In Living Color" reboot, but Fox later cancelled it before it would ever air.
SNL needs to reboot itself to freshen things up. I think cast members who stay beyond 5 to 8 years is a mistake and almost sucks the life out of the show.
If Jason does come back, he'll be viewed as a lame duck. I only think he returned last year after rumors of leaving is because Lorne didn't want to hire or have somebody else play Mitt Romney in sketches and debates.
Personally, they need to find a bunch of stronger male cast members to complement the ones who are coming back. I see on the message boards people keep suggesting James Adomian and others to join the show. Then again, it's up to Lorne as to who's a good fit with SNL. He's not going to pick somebody because people on the internet think he or she is good.
Also, they really need to have a black female in the cast. I know they tried to go after Kali Hawk, but she said no and trashed the show in an interview. I don't think they'll go after her again after that. She was cast in the "In Living Color" reboot, but Fox later cancelled it before it would ever air.
SNL needs to reboot itself to freshen things up. I think cast members who stay beyond 5 to 8 years is a mistake and almost sucks the life out of the show.
If Jason does come back, he'll be viewed as a lame duck. I only think he returned last year after rumors of leaving is because Lorne didn't want to hire or have somebody else play Mitt Romney in sketches and debates.
- Status