Saturday Night Live

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Saturday Night Live

#151 Post by Big Ben » Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:29 pm

I agree with Brian here. The idea that SNL had sketches that were hit after hit just isn't true. People only really remember the good sketches like Belushi's Samurai or Chris Farley's Chippendale's Routine because they've all floated to the top and stayed there. All the really awful stuff has just been buried. Some of the current stuff makes me laugh sure but there's trash too. Chadwick Boseman had a sketch involving inflatable dogs that took place while a building was burning and there were explosions going on. I saw stupefied as to what the hell I was supposed to be laughing at.

Kate McKinnon is the standout though. I imagine she'll go on to do great things once she's done with SNL.

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3121
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Saturday Night Live

#152 Post by Brian C » Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:52 pm

Yeah that Boseman sketch was a clunker. But stuff like that is easy for me to get past - the writers tried something weird, it didn’t take, oh well, everyone moves on.

For me, mfunk’s criticism of the political stuff rings 100% true with Baldwin’s Trump sketches. The first time he did it, it was a breath of fresh air in a way - everyone was doing Trump gags, of course, but no one really sank to Trump’s gutter level like Baldwin did. Like, Hammond’s trump was all about bragging about his hotels and saying “classy” a lot, but Baldwin really took on the full awfulness of the guy and stopped treating him with kid gloves. He deserves credit for that if nothing else.

But now those sketches are an awful drag on the show. They’re pitifully lazy, both in the writing and performance, and besides not being funny, it’s hard to see half the time how they’re even trying to be funny.

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Saturday Night Live

#153 Post by Ribs » Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:59 pm

Well, and they're at such a weird point with the Celebrity impersonators for literally every single new Trump-related person. Like, Obama or Bush's impersonators didn't necessarily appear every week during their presidency, so the infrequency of Baldwin appearing doesn't really bother me so much as that they seem just incapable of having anyone new in the political orbit be played by actual cast members of the show. Take this weekend's - the joke only works as a play on Meet the Parents, which means you need to have the two celebrities from the movie. But the joke is lazy because it's not like they already had Ben Stiller or Robert De Niro playing those characters - then the joke would have been better, probably, and felt more earned, instead of feeling like they literally just got the two of them to get Youtube views for a really pretty cheap joke.

I also think part of it is, due to assuming that Trump would lose, they kind of unwittingly were left without a really good starry part for Kate McKinnon when she's clearly the center of the show as it is right now. Kellyanne Conway just isn't in the news enough to merit her appearing more than very infrequently, and Jeff Sessions has the same problem (plus, it's not actually a very entertaining impression). Beck Bennett has probably built up to be the second most notable member of the cast (well, after Kenan, too, I guess) simply by being able to play two heavy political figures. But by having literally every single new person be played by someone already famous it's really threatening the show's ability to turn people famous which is essential for it to get back on the upswing part of the cycle where the show is more generally well liked.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4246
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Saturday Night Live

#154 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:04 pm

I only watched a tiny bit of the show, but it's a tired crowd-pleaser to regurgitate well-known scenes from a popular film or TV show. It takes no thought whatsoever - you just need a different context, get the original actors if possible, and then pretty much copy said scene word for word and watch the audience holler. A lazy old trick, like doing a song that name-checks the city you're in, and to be fair everyone does it, not just SNL, but they typically lean on that way too much.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Posts: 11972
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Saturday Night Live

#155 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:17 pm

Ribs wrote:I also think part of it is, due to assuming that Trump would lose, they kind of unwittingly were left without a really good starry part for Kate McKinnon when she's clearly the center of the show as it is right now. Kellyanne Conway just isn't in the news enough to merit her appearing more than very infrequently, and Jeff Sessions has the same problem (plus, it's not actually a very entertaining impression).
I like McKinnon but there's definitely some "Ewing theory" potential if she left. She really sucks up so much of the show's oxygen and has a more limited range than the show seems to think she does. Every time there is a new political figure that surfaces, McKinnon is there to play them as sort of an "oh my god, isn't that amazing that she's playing [insert male politician here]?!" stunt, which is almost as insufferable as the celebrity casting stuff. McKinnon and Strong both feel as if they've hit the high point of their time on the show and then outstayed their welcome, but I just find Strong to be the much more funny and versatile one of the two.

And while I already am coming off like I have some bias against female cast members, I might as well go a little further and add the rather risky opinion that Leslie Jones is absolutely terrible in sketches. The show seems to be doing less and less to appeal to her strength, which is usually just her playing with some variation on herself like she has on Update so successfully. The moment she's delivering key cue card lines in a sketch she usually fumbles the ball, which is a bummer, because she's an incredibly likable presence and obviously has a really bright future in showbusiness.

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3121
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Saturday Night Live

#156 Post by Brian C » Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:58 pm

I don't agree with McKinnon's Ewing Theory potential, or Strong either for that matter, but I suppose I understand where you're coming from. Lord knows I felt exactly that same way about Wiig during her last few years (although her sendoff was a really lovely moment in the show's history).

Jones is pretty awful with the cue cards, no question. I think she's otherwise a fine performer, but it does break up the momentum of her sketches when she struggles with the cards. If she does a stand-up show around here, I'll happily pay to go see her.

The Stiller/De Niro thing ... ugh. It was a real shame, because getting Stiller to play Cohen seemed like a masterstroke; no one does belligerent buffoonery quite like he does. But then it just turned into a Fockers thing. What a waste. Actually kind of sad, really.

Still, I don't generally mind the "stunt casting" all that much on principle - most of the celebs they get are either alums of the show (even Stiller technically qualifies!) or frequent hosts, so they don't feel all that out of place to me. And McCarthy's first Spicer sketch was an all-time great.

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Saturday Night Live

#157 Post by Ribs » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:43 pm

Eagle-eared listeners may have noticed that Darrell Hammond mistakenly referred to the host of this week's episode as "John Mulvaney" on not one but two separate occasions during the intro, which I'm sure excited our favorite customer service rep who definitely really exists

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Posts: 11972
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Saturday Night Live

#158 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:02 pm

I always fast forward through the opening credits, I had no idea he was currently the announcer. He really does know how to wring every remaining drop out of his employment there, doesn't he

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8741
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Saturday Night Live

#159 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue May 29, 2018 4:21 pm

Yesterday was 20 years since Phil Hartman's murder. I don't really think his death is why The Simpsons went down the tubes, but I can say without much hesitation he's probably my favorite cast member in terms of what he did on SNL. It helped he wasn't really tied to a character like some others were, but the "everyman" aspect of what he brought really set him apart in my eyes.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4246
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Saturday Night Live

#160 Post by hearthesilence » Tue May 29, 2018 5:06 pm

The 1986-1990 cast is second only to the 1975-1980 cast in terms of chemistry across an entire cast, and Phil Hartman was a big reason for that. If you watch that run of seasons, he doesn't pop out right away like Dana Carvey or Lovitz (both of whom were more ostentatious as performers) but pretty soon it's apparent how valuable he was in bringing everything together and of course earning his behind-the-scenes nickname "glue." He and Jan Hooks are probably two of the best performers in SNL history, on par with Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Gilda Radner, Eddie Murphy and Martin Short before them, and their sketches together are brilliantly executed.

User avatar
Polybius
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

Re: Saturday Night Live

#161 Post by Polybius » Wed May 30, 2018 12:38 am

I agree completely. In fact, I might nudge that era into the top spot. Not so much in cultural impact but for the sheer consistent enjoyment that I got from them week in and week out.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8741
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Saturday Night Live

#162 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed May 30, 2018 1:12 am

I'd say one big difference is that the show settled into one consistent framework, as opposed to those first couple of years when it was finding it's feet and going into more esoteric directions at the time.

User avatar
Polybius
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

Re: Saturday Night Live

#163 Post by Polybius » Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:18 am

Also, you really didn't see that sort of irreverence on network TV at that time, even that late at night.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8741
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Saturday Night Live

#164 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:45 pm

Polybius wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 12:38 am
I agree completely. In fact, I might nudge that era into the top spot. Not so much in cultural impact but for the sheer consistent enjoyment that I got from them week in and week out.
I agree with that too, except I don't think the show was as bad after 1990, until Hartman and a few other key people left. The Sandler/Spade/Farley era appealed to me as a kid and there is stuff there that I'm sure holds up better than some would think. I was completely of age to appreciate the Ferrell era in the late 90's, but I'd usually defer to watching reruns wherever they were on.

Post Reply