Let's Talk About SNL! Complaints, Bothers, (even what we didn't hate) and More!

[Kromm]

The place to vent!

[Song of Roland]

Sick of the 'I have a movie coming out this week' host and 'I have a record coming out this week' musical guest. Especially when the musical guest is a big name and already getting free PR via their frontman's high profile divorce and hosting gig on a reality show.

 

I wish SNL would go cold turkey on that for a year, and see if it makes any difference with their ratings. Personally, I'm more likely to watch it when someone more obscure is on; I feel real delight when I can 'discover' someone like Sam Smith.

[Toaster Strudel]

Please, no more of that dreadful Arcade Fire!

[BoogieBurns]

I hate the (un)availability of reruns! They suck. I was trying to watch old episodes on hulu plus, which is the only place that I can find them, and the episodes are so short. They remove all of the content. I understand about music rights and other crap, but 3 episodes played without showing a monologue. That's out of the 5 that I watched. Jamie Pressly hosted and they only included one sketch with her. Hulu is missing 25 seasons. They have 1-5 and 30-38. But nothing in between.

 

Why can't we ever see the episode again? They even edit it OnDemand which is posted the following day. Sometimes I just want to binge on old episodes and they don't exist. 

[Kromm]

For me. the worst aspect was always the "skit going on too long" thing.

 

Yes, there were logical reasons it happened. They had time to fill, and it's easier to extend a skit than carve out time for another skit.  And a live show is far more subject to this than a non-live show (like SCTV or Kids in the Hall).  But man, over the years I've had SO many memories of horrible skits that MIGHT have been tolerable if they'd been half the time.

[Milburn Stone]

For me, the worst thing is the second, third, fourth, and infinitieth time the same characters are trotted out.

 

Back in the Golden Age, the show got truly great mileage out of revisiting the Coneheads, or the Czechoslovakian Brothers. But ever since then, revisits to sketch ideas have too often meant steeply diminishing returns.

[JTMacc99]

My least favorite part over the years is when a power player develops. In my opinion, the finest seasons were the times where there was a core of 4-5 stars and an equal amount of strong support around them.

 

For example, I absolutely adored the mid-nineties period where There was a core group of Dana Carvey, Jan Hooks, Nora Dunn, Phil Hartman, Jon Lovitz, Victoria Jackson, Kevin Nealon, Mike Meyers and Dennis Miller.  No particular one of them dominated over the others, but there were clear leaders and so much depth that every sketch would be filled with contributors. 

 

In other seasons, you could list the cast like I just did and notice that there would be one or two people who clearly dominated the episodes, and while those people were often enormously talented, it wasn't as much fun as it is when there is strength everywhere.

 

And then there are seasons like the current one, where I'm not really sure who are the leaders and who is the support. It seems like there is a lot of really talented support, but I'm missing the core four or five who bring it all together every week.

[Cpindc]

I hate the (un)availability of reruns! They suck. I was trying to watch old episodes on hulu plus, which is the only place that I can find them, and the episodes are so short. They remove all of the content. I understand about music rights and other crap, but 3 episodes played without showing a monologue. That's out of the 5 that I watched. Jamie Pressly hosted and they only included one sketch with her. Hulu is missing 25 seasons. They have 1-5 and 30-38. But nothing in between.

 

Why can't we ever see the episode again? They even edit it OnDemand which is posted the following day. Sometimes I just want to binge on old episodes and they don't exist.

I think Yahoo bought the exclusive rights to all the missing seasons - I haven't checked out their streaming app on Roku, but I'm guessing they're there or on the web.

[annzeepark914]

The poor writing and the immaturity of the skits.  After Will Farrell, Cheri Oteri, Molly Shannon, A. Gastmeyer, Chris K., etc., left, the show IMO seems to have lost creativity.

[DowntonStabby]

This is more specific to the current season, but I hate when they have a ton of celebrity cameo stunt casting bits for characters (or as themselves) in sketches (not in every episode, but in some), especially when there are a few cast members in particular (John Milhiser, where is Lorne Michaels keeping you?) have gotten next-to-no airtime this season to begin with. Granted, some cast members getting more airtime over others is nothing new, and expected, especially when it comes to veterans vs. newcomers, but when it's in favor of people who aren't even on the show (and aren't hosting/musical guesting that week), that just seems like kind of like a "fuck you" to that person, at least to me.

[Bees]

There's three things that bother me about SNL most of all. 

 

1) Lorne's Blatant Favoritism. If you don't think that Lorne plays favorites, you're sorely mistaken. At least in the past 15 years, he's had his favorites and by god you KNEW who they were. They're the ones who always seem to get their sketches aired, are always the center of attention in every sketch, or seems to get away with stuff that Lorne previously wouldn't have had any patience for. For example, Lorne Michaels HATES improv stuff on the show. I mean he hated it so much that Adrien Brody was banned from hosting ever again for improvising something when introducing Sean Paul during his episode. Yet, Fred Armisen and Kristen Wiig's Garth and Kat were improvised 90% of the time. Or Armisen's news character guy whose name I can't remember. Also, Lorne REALLY liked Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers. The favoritism is really infuriating at times. 

 

2) Long Drawn Out Gags/Jokes/Sketches. Basically anything that Will Ferrell or Kristen Wiig tended to do on SNL can be thrown in here. I usually like to call this the "THAT'S ENOUGH, X!" Syndrome. I mean there's a time and place for jokes that are drawn out but SNL is not one of them. It's live and you draw crap like that out, it ends up leaving some sketches cut from the live show. And that can be really unfair. 

 

3) Too Much Corpsing (aka Breaking Character and Dissolving in a fit of Giggles). Look, I like seeing when there's some instance of breaking character but not every single time you're on the screen. Too much corpsing does two things. First, it draws out the sketch more and ends up making the show drag on. Second, it takes the charm out of corpsing if it's done too much. Like when Phil Hartman broke character in that Succinctly Speaking sketch as Frankenstein, that was wonderful and hilarious because it was freaking PHIL HARTMAN! The dude who has always been professional and able to keep a straight face. But when Jimmy Fallon gets a case of the freaking church giggles for the thousandth time, it gets old and tedious. I'm able to accept it in cases like Stefon (since it works with his character tic) and Jebediah Atkinson (because Killam knows how to recover well) but I like it when they don't crack up every single time. 

[vb68]

 

And then there are seasons like the current one, where I'm not really sure who are the leaders and who is the support. It seems like there is a lot of really talented support, but I'm missing the core four or five who bring it all together every week.

 

 

 

I would argue that Taran and Kate are really growing into those roles.  To some extent, Bobby and Cecily too, but I see Taran and Kate as the leaders.

 

The corpsing stuff is really weird because supposedly Lorne always hated it when the show started.  It's been in the books that he use to tell people that it wasn't The Carol Burnett Show.  So I wonder how that all changed in the recent years.

 

And I have to say that the one complaint about the show that always gets on my nerves is reading the cue cards.  They are necessary.  Sure, some cast members and hosts are better at it than others, but they all have to read them by pure necessity. 

Edited May 13, 2014 by vb68

[JTMacc99]

I would argue that Taran and Kate are really growing into those roles.  To some extent, Bobby and Cecily too, but I see Taran and Kate as the leaders.

 

I did spend some time thinking about it before I wrote that, and I felt like it should be Taran and Kate (because they are awesome,) but of the entire group, Aidy is the only one who appears to be willing to take the wheel and steer every week. Bobby too, come to think of it.

Edited May 14, 2014 by JTMacc99

[Bees]

Also, I really hate it when SNL alumni host and it turns into basically a cast reunion show. Case in point take tonight's episode, especially that Vogelcheck sketch. 

[Song of Roland]

Sorry, but Taran is NOT a 'star'. He hasn't come up with any characters that are really memorable other than Jebediah whatever, who was only really funny the first couple of times. He relies on his surprised baby face look, and a bit of singing/dancing and that's it. Kate is the actual star, IMO, but she doesn't have the attention-hogging/beat-the-joke-into-the-ground quality of a Wiig.

 

On a related subject, I'll say it again: no good impressionists. Last night, they had to bring Bill back to do a couple. Even Andy Samberg does better impressions than any of the current cast.

 

I wonder why they don't use more stand up comedians for host gigs. I would love to see Gabriel Iglesias or Brian Regan or Jim Gaffigan on SNL; they all have very distinct personas that could make interesting additions to the skits. I just looked back at the Wiki list of hosts, and other than Louis C.K. (who I thought was the opposite of entertaining) and Kevin Hart, there haven't been any stand up guys as host for years.

 

 

[Kromm]

Sorry, but Taran is NOT a 'star'. He hasn't come up with any characters that are really memorable other than Jebediah whatever, who was only really funny the first couple of times. He relies on his surprised baby face look, and a bit of singing/dancing and that's it. Kate is the actual star, IMO, but she doesn't have the attention-hogging/beat-the-joke-into-the-ground quality of a Wiig.

 

On a related subject, I'll say it again: no good impressionists. Last night, they had to bring Bill back to do a couple. Even Andy Samberg does better impressions than any of the current cast.

 

I wonder why they don't use more stand up comedians for host gigs. I would love to see Gabriel Iglesias or Brian Regan or Jim Gaffigan on SNL; they all have very distinct personas that could make interesting additions to the skits. I just looked back at the Wiki list of hosts, and other than Louis C.K. (who I thought was the opposite of entertaining) and Kevin Hart, there haven't been any stand up guys as host for years.

I'd say because they care more about the gimmick of having someone "hot", who more than likely has a matching movie project coming out that week, than they do the quality of the appearance.  

 

To be fair, it's always been that way.  Belushi and those guys way back would gripe about the suckass guest hosts vs. the times the show managed to get a George Carlin or Richard Pryor.  I think that tension has never disappeared from the show.

[AnnieBeez]

 

Sorry, but Taran is NOT a 'star'. He hasn't come up with any characters that are really memorable other than Jebediah whatever, who was only really funny the first couple of times. He relies on his surprised baby face look, and a bit of singing/dancing and that's it. Kate is the actual star, IMO, but she doesn't have the attention-hogging/beat-the-joke-into-the-ground quality of a Wiig.

I totally agree with you about Kate. She's funny, talented, versatile (not the same damn voice/accent no matter what like Aidy), and a team player. I think Taran is good and I don't mind a bit that he hasn't come up with many repeat characters. For me, with the exception of Stefon, that gets old fast (looking at you Wiig). 

 

Weekend Update anchors are just weak. I'm especially disappointed in Cecily Strong. I don't think she's made it hers. Then again, maybe there's no there there? I don't know. I feel like previous anchors have put their distinct signature on WU. That's where my Amy Poehler girl crush began. 

[Traveller519]

It almost feels like there are too many "Kermits" with the current cast. That is talented enough folks who can also play the straight man to the zaniness going on around them. But if you lose the Kermit, the whole show would fall into a dis-jointed mess.

 

It was pointed out over at TWOP but the thing about the recurring sketches is that they're now feeling like they go beat for beat with the same process and jokes. I love the Porn Stars and Shallon, but every time they air it's basically swap in that week's host change the focus piece (luxury product/safety worry) and go. Why don't we take the Porn Stars to a trade show where they're looking at multiple products and not understanding them? Or have Shallon square off against a teacher (or my dream sketch of Shallon vs. Beck's AT&T guy where nothing is getting through).

 

I know the show is a grind for everyone every week and recurring sketches help facilitate getting things done, but when semi-original and fund stuff is cut in favor of another installment of Girlfriends Talk Show it reeks of blatant favoritism to some writers and cast members over those that are out there trying new things. I'm not expecting a new skit every week centered around a featured player, but if they spend a couple weeks refining a bit I would hope it would get more opportunity than being released the next day on hulu, which I cannot legally watch from Canada.

[Milburn Stone]

It was pointed out over at TWOP but the thing about the recurring sketches is that they're now feeling like they go beat for beat with the same process and jokes. 

 

That has been true for a while. "What Up With That?," anybody?

[A Boston Gal]

Is there a forum for the Maya Rudolph special?  Didn't see one....

I mention it here only because I was strangely disapointed in it. I don't know why I was expecting something more, or at least something more original.

[Milburn Stone]

Is there a forum for the Maya Rudolph special?  Didn't see one....

I mention it here only because I was strangely disapointed in it. I don't know why I was expecting something more, or at least something more original.

 

Until that forum exists…I think the Maya Rudolph Show (is this going to be a weekly show, by the way?) started off strong with the funny and well-crafted (IMO) musical number in which she introduced the show and herself to the audience, then lost a little steam, then picked up steam again with the "Siri-voice" sketch, then lost steam for good. The good parts were enough to make me give the show one more chance (if it's ever on again). But I agree, the lame parts, of which there were too many, were disappointing.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[A Boston Gal]

That's a great description of the trajectory of the show, Milburn.  I didn't give enough credit to that opening sequence in which Maya gets everything she wants, including a pony.

 

I also thought it was going to be a series, but my DVR only showed it as a one time show, without the option to record it as a series. We'll have to keep an eye out for it.

[formerlyfreedom]

If you want to start a thread here in the SNL forum about Maya's show, go ahead. Or over in the Everything Else TV forum might work. I can set it up so that one is just a link to the actual discussion.

Every thing I have seen on it describes it as a pilot or special, but with no other episodes listed. So we'll have to see what develops.

[Tara Ariano]

(I wrote something about it yesterday.)

[Mya Stone]

(I wrote something about it yesterday.)

Wow...you write? ;)

[Milburn Stone]

(I wrote something about it yesterday.)

 

Great piece, Tara. It prompts a thought. I would submit that the variety show never went away. It became SNL.

 

When you think about it, SNL and the genre known as "the variety show" essentially have all their elements in common. Musical sequences--often not limited to the numbers performed by the musical guests, but in the opening host segment and in sketches and "Digital Shorts" as well. Comedy skits. Recurring comedic characters (a la The Carol Burnett Show). SNL is the variety show of the modern era; it just snuck up on us through the counterculture so that we didn't recognize it at the time.

[vb68]

Lorne has acknowledged that himself.  I've seen him argue in interviews that one reason it's important for SNL to stay on-air is so there is one true Variety Show left. 

[Kromm]

Is there a forum for the Maya Rudolph special?  Didn't see one....

I mention it here only because I was strangely disapointed in it. I don't know why I was expecting something more, or at least something more original.

I haven't seen it yet, but if it was being labeled as a "variety show" (in the classic sense) as it seemed to be from what I've seen about it, why would that seem to be promising originality?

[Milburn Stone]

Lorne has acknowledged that himself.  I've seen him argue in interviews that one reason it's important for SNL to stay on-air is so there is one true Variety Show left. 

 

Aha. So, great minds think alike then. :)

[helenamonster]

I really need this show to get some of its bite back. I just posted in the James Franco episode thread that I thought SNL was almost too mainstream now, and I think it's to the point where they're trying so hard to appeal to the broadest audience that they refuse to take a definitive stance on anything. Be controversial, make people mad, explore the issues critically...take a risk, ffs. It's one of the reasons I am so desperately hoping for Tina to take over for Lorne when he decides to retire (no idea if this has even the slightest chance of happening, but a girl can dream). Not only does she know the show inside and out, but she's blunt. She takes a stand. She says what she thinks and moves tf on. SNL needs that kind of kick in the pants. Whether you agree with the views they take isn't important (though that's easy for me to say, as those views tend to line up very nicely with mine). Saying something is better than putzing around in some middling area and saying nothing.

[Pete Martell]

I don't think they have to take a stand, but if they aren't going to do social or political commentary, they need to sharpen up the quality of their characters and stop relying on the assumption that viewers want to see confused and lethargic performers bumbling through sketches. Lorne Michaels hated how The Carol Burnett Show allowed the cast to break character and laugh through scenes. He thought this was lazy and pandering. Yet now he makes a career out of the cast breaking each other up.

[formerlyfreedom]

Let's face it; we all think SNL has suffered since its prime. What do you think they could do better? What do you think they shouldn't do anymore? Let's talk about the writing, the cast, the hosts, the past cast members revisiting, what we think of the seasons as a whole, and maybe, just maybe, we might even share something we like about the show!

[vb68]

 

but if they aren't going to do social or political commentary,

 

I disagree with this assumption.  Two weeks ago they did a sketch where Obama pushed the Bill down the capital steps in the School House Rock parody.  I didn't agree with the context of that and said so at the time.  But that was political commentary.  I also posted an unaired sketch in the James Franco thread that had more bite than the cold open that aired in its place.  So I don't think it's true that they just aren't going to do political commentary. 

 

I do agree, though, that too many the political sketches, especially the cold opens, are completely toothless.  The lasting effects of Jim Downey.  I agree with helenamonster that there just needs to be more risk taking in general. Back in the day the show use to fight the censors all the time.  I think that in a strange way it's harder to do that today with all the different options that weren't around in the 70s.  Broadcast networks are only going to go so far as opposed to cable and the internet, even in late night.  Sometimes I do wish SNL aired on HBO.  Look at Bill Maher and now John Oliver.  Regardless on whether you agree with them, they have bite.

Edited December 8, 2014 by vb68

[Pete Martell]

The Schoolhouse Rock parody was another variation of "both sides are bad...PS Democrats are a little worse," that is now SNL's bread and butter. 

 

I don't think SNL has any ability to do political or topical humor; they're too afraid, they're too used to catering to mainstream. They also don't have the luxury of someone on Comedy Central or HBO.

 

If they aren't going to take the risk (and I don't think Lorne Michaels ever will - I imagine the "edgiest" this show will get in the upcoming primary season is probably bringing back more jokes about Bill Clinton's philandering), then I think it's time to drop any attempt, and to focus on sharpening the quality of sketches and finding a cast who can work in sketch comedy and aren't just there to adorably flub their way through each week until, if they're lucky, they find one or two popular recurring characters.

 

The show has become so cozy, with their cute, safe cast, their Rolodex of overfamiliar guest stars who pop in for cameos, etc. so I assume they will never want to leave this world. If they don't want to, then they should at least try to make that world the best it can possibly be. As it is now, it's a loud, lethargic struggle.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Pete Martell

[Inquisitionist]

I don't think SNL has any ability to do political or topical humor; they're too afraid, they're too used to catering to mainstream. They also don't have the

The show has become so cozy, with their cute, safe cast, their Rolodex of overfamiliar guest stars who pop in for cameos, etc. so I assume they will never want to leave this world. If they don't want to, then they should at least try to make that world the best it can possibly be. As it is now, it's a loud, lethargic struggle.

 

Amen.  No one seems "hungry" any more.  Most cast members seem to be "putting in their time" for the inevitable break into movies.  I don't know why I bother recording it.  Each episode is lamer than the last. 

[Dev F]

The Schoolhouse Rock parody was another variation of "both sides are bad...PS Democrats are a little worse," that is now SNL's bread and butter.

 

Which I would be OK with as a liberal if the jokes directed in our direction at least had some ring of truth about them. The Sarah Palin sketches during the 2008 election also made fun of Hillary Clinton for seeming ruthless and entitled, and Joe Biden for seeming smug and hypocritical, and that never bothered me, because it was based in something genuine about the people and events in question. My favorite Biden bit lampooned the Democrats' asinine attempts to thread the needle on gay rights:

 

"In an Obama/Biden administration, same-sex couples would be guaranteed the same property rights, rights to insurance, and rights of ownership as heterosexual couples. There will be no distinction. I repeat, no distinction."

 

"So, to clarify, do you support gay marriage, Senator Biden?"

 

"Absolutely not! But I do think they should be allowed to visit one another in the hospital. And in a lot of ways, that's just as good, if not better."

 

That's a very specific bit of satire directed at something dumb the Democrats were actually doing. Whereas recent bits have relied on broad swipes at things people who aren't paying much attention to the news might think Obama is doing if they caught ten minutes of Fox News at their parents' house.

[absnow54]

I think the current cast lacks chemistry on all fronts, which makes it difficult to produce anything memorable. The cast is constantly going through transitions and some are bigger than others. There have been peaks in the late 80's, the mid-90's, the early -00's and the late-00's where the cast has really clicked, but with the exception of Bobby, Taran, Kate, and maybe Aidy and Beck, they've yet to really add any strong performers who can carry the show, and even then, they don't seem to collaborate. The girlfriends talk show is the only recurring sketch I can think of that seems to utilize more than one cast member. I know the 90's got saddled down with too many recurring characters, and then there was the era of Wiig, but I wish there were more sketches where every character didn't seem to be interchangeable. Nobody seems to have a personality and that's hard to connect with. Leslie Jones has been a star this year because she is beaming with personality, unfortunately her sketch comedy skills could use a lot of work.

[ChromaKelly]

I think an example of what's wrong with SNL is the sketch that was cut from the Franco show. Why was that cut? It was slightly edgy and topical, and a crap ton funnier than most of what did make the show. Really, put that stupid troll LOL Men Kissing! sketch in over something about Ferguson?
FFS, *do* something about Weekend Update. Is it a law that the head writer has to be a WU anchor? Colin Jost is too bland, and I'm just not feeling Michael Che. The jokes are falling flat, and neither of them play off the WU guests well. All I think about is comparing how Seth would be interacting with the guest. From the current cast, I would put Cecily back in and maybe Beck Bennett. Or, how would Keenan do? If he's set on living out his career on SNL?

[helenamonster]

I think everybody is making great points, and what's super frustrating is all of this is fixable. We're not reaching for the stars here.

 

Just some stray observations/comments:

 

• Fixing WU would be my top priority if I were Lorne. And I know he likes having the head writer at the desk because it means the segment "gets done," but what does that even really mean? WU happens every week, the writers know that...aren't there writers whose only job is to come up with WU jokes? They should have the discipline to do their job even in the head writer isn't breathing down their neck. The point is, it's December and Michael is still stumbling over his words and looks just as bored and irritated to be there as I am to watch him. As for Colin, I've seen potatoes with more personality and charisma. I don't expect any changes before Christmas, but my eyebrows will be perpetually raised if Lorne does not take advantage of the winter hiatus to do some re-tooling.
• Cast chemistry. Work on it. Designate some time for improv games or something. The cast changes over the past few years have been more monumental than gradual and it's making it more difficult, imo, for the current cast to generate vibes with one another.
• Go back to striking a nice balance between political/social commentary and more abstract/character work. With the commentary, tackle it head on. The cold open this past week was all wrong. They should have been using Kenan's Sharpton impression as a frame for Eric Garner, not the other way around. Just dropping buzzwords and tired references into sketches does absolutely nothing.

 

I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of right now. I know the current cast gets irritated that the show is being dissected every week, but that's just the age we live in. Yeah, in 1975, the hour and a half would go by and you'd remember the stuff that was really good or exceptionally terrible and forget the mediocre. Tbh, the show is probably no better or worse than it used to be, we just have the tools to look at it more closely. Cuz now, the show is divided up into individual sketches that can be watched over and over and sometimes go viral, and people from different parts of the country can gather together in one place and discuss it until the cows come home, and that's just how it is. Either adapt or stop complaining. SNL is by no means the only show that gets broken down online.

[possibilities]

I love political humor, but if they want to be funny some other way, I'm okay with that, too. I just need it to be funny some way or other. I mean, the fake commercials are usually hilarious. And some of the weirder stuff really appeals to me. I still love the kids dancing in Paris, and I liked the exploding build-a-guy sketch this week. So I'm not that fussy about what type of humor they choose to focus on. I just want them to do that well.

 

I really think that there's a structural problem, because the cast is clearly talented. And other shows hire funny writers and produce more consistently funny material. So I know there's writing talent out there, it's just a matter of selecting and managing it well.

 

There's no excuse for WU being in flux this long. I wasn't even that big of a Seth Myers fan, and I can't stomach his late night show. I can't understand why WU is flailing around and being this dull now that he's gone.

[Pete Martell]

I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of right now. I know the current cast gets irritated that the show is being dissected every week, but that's just the age we live in. Yeah, in 1975, the hour and a half would go by and you'd remember the stuff that was really good or exceptionally terrible and forget the mediocre. Tbh, the show is probably no better or worse than it used to be, we just have the tools to look at it more closely. Cuz now, the show is divided up into individual sketches that can be watched over and over and sometimes go viral, and people from different parts of the country can gather together in one place and discuss it until the cows come home, and that's just how it is. Either adapt or stop complaining. SNL is by no means the only show that gets broken down online.

 

The irony is that as the social media age has torn many shows apart and a number of producers have spoken about listening too closely to Internet criticism and later regretting it, SNL has actually had it easy. There were many years where the media paid such close attention to SNL that an off season would lead to them being flayed alive (80-81, 85-86, 94-95). In more recent years, SNL has become an "institution," so criticism and expectations are heavily lowered. And Internet criticism delves into two camps - the "it's sucked for a hundred years, why is this still on" stuff that people ignore, and generally positive, constructive criticism. 

 

The only time I've seen any active criticism that seemed to rattle the show was the lack of WOC. They have made some attempts to address this, and the criticism went away, even though the material is generally still degrading and trucking in stereotypes. 

 

SNL has become like The Lawrence Welk Show, in that it exists in its own schmaltzy universe and will occasionally wake from its slumber long enough to update a few jokes, or, in Welk's case, try to be current by having Beatles nights (and to be fair some of those Beatles covers were pretty good). No show that wasn't wrapped in the cotton wool of low expectations and indulgent nostalgia would get away with "black people are so stupid!" and "gay men are so icky lol they're kissing EWWWW!!!!" jokes in 2014.

[Inquisitionist]

SNL has become like The Lawrence Welk Show, in that it exists in its own schmaltzy universe and will occasionally wake from its slumber long enough to update a few jokes, ...

 

Perfect!

[vb68]

 

SNL has become like The Lawrence Welk Show, in that it exists in its own schmaltzy universe and will occasionally wake from its slumber long enough to update a few jokes, ...

 

 

I think it's overly harsh.  Could the writing  be better?  Yes, of course.  But that's generally always true.  

 

 

Tbh, the show is probably no better or worse than it used to be,

 

I'm in this camp.  I think SNL is just one of those shows where everyone criticizes the current season and waxes nostalgic for the golden years (or as a cast member once said, "the cast that was there when you were in junior high").  People are now starting to re-evaluate Seth's tenure, both on Update and as Head Writer.  It's like clockwork in my eyes.

 

The show right now is still very much in transition.  They are still reeling from the mass exodus  of Wiig, Hader, Samberg, Sudeikis, etc.   They are  trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.  That is most painfully obvious with Update.  Do I wish it had an edge?   Hell yes.   But  I still disagree that they wouldn't do the Sarah Palin stuff or any other social/political commentary if they can find something that works.  It's just a matter of finding it.  And again improving the writing.   The best example of finding something lately is Leslie.  She just works and is like a breath of fresh air.  So BAM.  She's in the cast and on every other Update.

 

What confuses me most about the current season is Kate was right on the precipice of being the next STAR and running the whole thing, but they have moved away from that.  And Taran had the next "Stefon" with Jebidiah Atkinson, but they haven't done that all season either.   

Edited December 9, 2014 by vb68

[helenamonster]

The irony is that as the social media age has torn many shows apart and a number of producers have spoken about listening too closely to Internet criticism and later regretting it, SNL has actually had it easy. There were many years where the media paid such close attention to SNL that an off season would lead to them being flayed alive (80-81, 85-86, 94-95). In more recent years, SNL has become an "institution," so criticism and expectations are heavily lowered. And Internet criticism delves into two camps - the "it's sucked for a hundred years, why is this still on" stuff that people ignore, and generally positive, constructive criticism. 

 

The only time I've seen any active criticism that seemed to rattle the show was the lack of WOC. They have made some attempts to address this, and the criticism went away, even though the material is generally still degrading and trucking in stereotypes. 

 

I agree with this, but I think it still bothers the cast that every sketch is now able to be dissected in blogs, on message boards, etc., not just in mainstream press. Back in the day, sketches (and whole episodes, probably) that were simply meh just faded away into the ether cuz you didn't have the ability to immediately log onto a forum like PTV and break the whole thing down. You turned it off and went to bed. And, as vb68 pointed out, this show is extremely susceptible to the nostalgia factor. It's easy to remember all the great sketches from years past and forget that there were ever any not-so-great ones. Now each and every sketch, as long as it doesn't have copyrighted music, is removed from the context of the show and put online in its own individual video--whether it be on YouTube, Yahoo Screen, Hulu--for the masses to pore over and criticize and be all nitpicky about. We live in the age where there's a place for everybody's opinion, and I think the cast, just based on comments I've seen them make in interviews, kind of resents that they're on the show during this era where they basically have to answer for every shit they take, so to speak.

 

As an example, Willie Geist of Today interviewed Colin and Michael a couple weeks back. He asked them how they handled criticism, and Michael made some comment about how if you don't like it, just move on, why do you have to say anything, blah blah blah. And to a certain point, yes, I agree with him. People do fixate on their hatred of things far too much sometimes (I'm guilty of this myself). But that's not gonna change. As long as there's Twitter and the comment sections of Youtube videos, people are going to express their opinions. What he doesn't seem to grasp (somewhat understandably) is that Weekend Update is a steaming pile of crap right now. It's an integral part of the show's 40-year history and it's at one of its lowest points. Instead of complaining that people don't like it, try to sort out the mindless hatred from people giving constructive criticism. Like, dude, you can't get through the segment without stumbling over your lines. Maybe try some vocal warm-ups. Or practice the jokes a million times in a mirror. Idk, but it's a valid criticism that people have. It ruins the flow of the segment and it's just generally unprofessional.

 

So yeah, the criticism is going to be more rampant because it's more accessible. But that should be motivating the show to make improvements, imo.

[Pete Martell]

I think it's overly harsh.  Could the writing  be better?  Yes, of course.  But that's generally always true.  

 

Other than most of 86-89, I don't think SNL has ever been a consistently well-written show. It's not about writing on its own, but also about cast chemistry, flow, knowing what your show is trying to be, and basic professionalism.

 

Lorne Michaels used to be very concerned about professional behavior in the live shows. He hated The Carol Burnett Show for presenting the idea that it was adorable or cute to go up on lines and make other cast members laugh. 

 

Now this happens over and over, week after week, with no real attempts made to improve it. 

 

Do viewers need to be put in the position of an aunt or uncle patiently laughing at a child who thinks they're a comic genius? 

 

If they don't have the stomach to do political commentary, why do it? Why not sharpen their focus in other areas? Sure, they would lose some buzz, but SNL hasn't had any buzz for politics in over half a decade, unless people count the brownface controversy, which I'd rather not. And I'm not sure the SNL of today would take the risk of even the relatively harmless Palin jokes they told in 2008.

 

They have the tools to make small but strong improvements if they just stop coasting.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Pete Martell

[BrokenRemote]

I think the current cast lacks chemistry on all fronts, which makes it difficult to produce anything memorable. The cast is constantly going through transitions and some are bigger than others. There have been peaks in the late 80's, the mid-90's, the early -00's and the late-00's where the cast has really clicked, but with the exception of Bobby, Taran, Kate, and maybe Aidy and Beck, they've yet to really add any strong performers who can carry the show, and even then, they don't seem to collaborate. The girlfriends talk show is the only recurring sketch I can think of that seems to utilize more than one cast member. I know the 90's got saddled down with too many recurring characters, and then there was the era of Wiig, but I wish there were more sketches where every character didn't seem to be interchangeable. Nobody seems to have a personality and that's hard to connect with. Leslie Jones has been a star this year because she is beaming with personality, unfortunately her sketch comedy skills could use a lot of work.

I've thought for some time that it's funny that it's Taran who's basically the strongest player and core of the show now. In other seasons he'd have been a bit player at best, and now he's the top player.  It's a sign to me that casting has been the biggest problem.  (Don't get me wrong, Taran is good and he has some good characters, he's solid, but he's not a star, he's not who would have lead the cast in past seasons.)

[BrokenRemote]

Other than most of 86-89, I don't think SNL has ever been a consistently well-written show. It's not about writing on its own, but also about cast chemistry, flow, knowing what your show is trying to be, and basic professionalism.

 

Lorne Michaels used to be very concerned about professional behavior in the live shows. He hated The Carol Burnett Show for presenting the idea that it was adorable or cute to go up on lines and make other cast members laugh. 

 

Now this happens over and over, week after week, with no real attempts made to improve it. 

 

Do viewers need to be put in the position of an aunt or uncle patiently laughing at a child who thinks they're a comic genius? 

 

If they don't have the stomach to do political commentary, why do it? Why not sharpen their focus in other areas? Sure, they would lose some buzz, but SNL hasn't had any buzz for politics in over half a decade, unless people count the brownface controversy, which I'd rather not. And I'm not sure the SNL of today would take the risk of even the relatively harmless Palin jokes they told in 2008.

 

They have the tools to make small but strong improvements if they just stop coasting.

What's the 'brownface controversy'?   Do you mean the criticism that they didn't have enough black women players?

Edited December 12, 2014 by BrokenRemote

[Pete Martell]

Fred Armisen as Obama.

[VCRTracking]

Even though she left the show two years ago, she remains a divisive figure. Every time she shows up, more then any alumni who makes a cameo, we get long discussions on her, whether she's an attention hog, whether her character's are one note, whether she's really funny or not, whether she (inadvertently) kept other female cast members from being allowed to shine,  and whether Lorne is right or completely insane in saying in that she's one of the "all time greats", etc. I decided to just make a thread away from the regular episodes where we can all talk(or complain) the next time she makes a surprise appearance.

 

And yes I know it's ironic that now she's getting "special treatment" on our own boards and not any other cast members!

 

My own opinion is she's great when used sparingly and used in the right way, like in certain sketches and film roles. She can make me laugh many times, even in cartoon bunny form:

Edited December 27, 2014 by VCRTracking

[BatmanBeatles]

I love her impersonations. It sometimes startles me how spot on they are.