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

[Milburn Stone]

My conviction is that something in her formative years made her fascinated, in a love/hate way, with people whom she observed always had a way of making themselves the center of attention. So she was drawn to creating and portraying these sorts of characters on SNL. Just about every single character she played was an attention hog in one way or another. This is not the same as Kristen Wiig being an attention hog! However--ironically and inevitably--it became her persona. To the point where now, even when she plays "herself" in an SNL cameo, the attention-hog persona is central to the schtick.

[pythonite]

I can't understand the flat out distain at her mere appearance. The woman is a trailblazer in comedy, one of the few SNL cast nominated for an Oscar, and from anything I have ever read about her, is unassumingly shy and private, and quick to give others credit.  I thought the '06-'12 years were pretty wide open with all the talented cast members getting moments to shine. Nothing like the Sandler years. 

[lou ann b]

I think she's briliant=this is not disdain on my part. It's just that Lorne has gone to the well once too often with her cameos, IMHO. And maybe just in the opening monologue would have been okay, but the massively unfunny (again, JMHO)Garth and Kat too?

Let us miss Kristen, Lorne. Okay?

Again, JMHO

[BatmanBeatles]

 

And maybe just in the opening monologue would have been okay, but the massively unfunny (again, JMHO)Garth and Kat too?

If she had to revive a skit, she should have done The Californians.

[helenamonster]

Ooh, the idea of this thread both excites and terrifies me. I dare it to rival the Mary vs. Edith thread in the Downton Abbey forum. Okay then, let's go. *cracks knuckles*

 

First of all, I do not not hate/dislike Kristen Wiig on a personal level. I have no idea what her offscreen persona is like. If anything, she's never quite seemed like a real person to me. She's always seemed like one of those people who only exists onstage or in front of a camera and then gets put away into a box or something until she's needed again. I don't mean anything positive or negative by that, it's just how I've seen her.

 

I used to really like Kristen on SNL. Her excess of screentime and (very similar) characters never bothered me when she was actually a cast member. I had a friend in high school, who, even all the way back in 2008, did not like Kristen. She told me she thought she was on too much. I remember responding with the fact that they had very few female cast members and she was a versatile performer and could pick up the slack. This was before the firings of Jenny, Michaela, Casey, and Abby, and even when those happened the possibility never occurred to me that they had been dropped in order to keep Kristen the stahh (whether this is true or not is up for debate).

 

It wasn't until her every-few-months cameos that she started to bother me. The one that really got me was the Sound of Music sketch from last year. There was no reason, none at all, to make that sketch about Doonese. The show had been completely eviscerated online, there was plenty of material there to parody without bringing in a recurring character (and they fucking did it again this year with Peter Pan and Tonkerbell, but that's for a different argument), especially one from a cast member that was no longer there. It was weird, lazy, and annoying as shit.

 

After that I started to retroactively evaluate her performances and the damage she had (unintentionally, to be fair) done to the show. Most, if not all, of her recurring characters (I'm too lazy to go back and look) did two things: 1) they followed the exact same formula every time they were on 2) they dominated a sketch. The sketch could include five other people but they were all "straight" men. No one else contributed a joke or anything that could warrant a laugh. This would be one thing if it were with just one recurring character, but it was with damn near all of them. That sort of thing just does not belong on SNL. It's supposed to be an ensemble/group effort. Yes, some cast members are going to shine more than others. But there's being better/more versatile and straight up hogging the show. Kristen didn't, and still doesn't, know where that line is. That's the other issue: the complete lack of self-awareness she seems to have about what a screenhog she is. I honestly don't think she gets it and it's really irritating.

 

Also, there's the well-known fact that Lorne adores her. SNL is a different beast than other scripted television shows, but I have a really hard time liking characters that I'm being told to like as opposed to shown (see also: Mary on Downton Abbey and my pick for "most unintentionally horrible fictional character of all time," Rachel Berry on Glee). Lorne continuing to push Kristen down my throat when she's no longer a cast member has the exact opposite effect than intended. I thank God every day that his attempt to make Kate the next Kristen (again, no proof, but come on) has spectacularly backfired.

 

I have no problem with Kristen outside of SNL. Bridesmaids is an excellent, excellent film that I will watch whenever it's on TV and quote just as frequently as I quote Mean Girls. But she's not endearing herself to me by dropping by with Fred in tow every couple months. She's funny, she's talented, but her SNL days are over. Move on, cameo every five years, and be done with it.

[KerleyQ]

If she had to revive a skit, she should have done The Californians.

 

Or, since it was a December episode, the Target Lady with holiday shoppers.  Anything is better than Garth and Kat.  I honestly don't think I've ever laughed at those two.  Ever.  Target Lady I've laughed at, depending on the characters she interacts with.  

[BatmanBeatles]

At least she didn't do her Gilly skit. I never liked those.

[Milburn Stone]

Most, if not all, of her recurring characters (I'm too lazy to go back and look) did two things: 1) they followed the exact same formula every time they were on 2) they dominated a sketch. The sketch could include five other people but they were all "straight" men. No one else contributed a joke or anything that could warrant a laugh.

 

But this was inevitable when the whole point of the sketch was to lampoon the sorts of people who are attention hogs. And every sketch she did was about this.

 

I'm convinced that the point of these sketches, for her, was to demonstrate how objectionable attention hogs are. This had to be rooted in a deep fascination with, and loathing for, attention hogs that she observed in her life. You might say she was obsessed with them. To the point where she's chosen that same character to play every time she appears as "herself" on SNL now. (Partly I think she makes this choice because the real Wiig is the exact opposite and wouldn't make much of an impression at all as "herself" if she played the "herself"-character more true to her actual self.)

 

In sketches lampooning attention hogs, no one else will ever have a chance to express a personality. It has to be thus, because the point of them is to show how in real life, those who live with attention hogs suffer. The problem--and here I agree with you completely--is that Lorne allowed too many of these sketches into the show. Ironically, just as the attention hog dominates her surroundings, the attention hog sketches came to dominate the show. That wasn't her fault, but maybe it shows a weakness in the other material being offered up by the writers and cast. They might have gone to the well of "Wiig-plays-an-attention-hog" so often because they had nothing strong enough to put on instead.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[vb68]

She did play support in one recurring sketch that I can think of- MacGruber.   I think the perception of her would had been different if there was a few more sketches and  characters like that where she wasn't trying so hard to pull focus.

 

I also agree that her impressions- Suze Ormon, Michelle Bachmann- were seriously on point.  I wish she focused on those more than the over the top  original characters that  became her trademark.

 

Likewise, I think I noticed the backlash really start when Lorne was so blunt that she was his favorite and she was "top three" of all time.  I think that caused some resentment, at least with those of us who follow the show.   I never had a big problem with her, but yeah I resented the statement.   Well, of course I'm a big ol' Jan Hooks fanboy who always  moans about the lack of recognition she received.  I still think her body of work  is still stronger than Kristin's.    But that is what it is, I guess.

 

It is interesting to me that once Kristin really hit in the movies with Bridesmaids  that I don't think she liked all the attention there, and she has pulled back some from taking bigger, higher profiles films.   It's kinda the opposite of her co-star Melissa McCarthy, who took the ball and ran with it.   Just interesting to note.  

Edited December 28, 2014 by vb68

[VCRTracking]

The first thing I really noticed her in was the "Two A-Holes" sketch with Jason Sudekis which I'm sad they stopped doing after a while. I loved it. Her line reading and a reactions(while chewing gum) were hilarious. "You look like a rabbit."

 

She also played a supporting role on Jenny Slate first show in the Biker Chat where Jenny  unfortunately said "fucking" on air instead of "friggin'" That time she was trying to help and kind of doing a new player a favor. I felt bad for Jenny who only lasted one season but she seems to have bounced back with having a recurring role on Parks and Rec and starring in the indie Obvious Child which got some critical acclaim. Who knows however if Biker Chat was allowed to been a recurring sketch like Wayne's World? She played an interesting character, atypical of her usual ones, this tough Biker chick.

Edited December 28, 2014 by VCRTracking

[helenamonster]

But this was inevitable when the whole point of the sketch was to lampoon the sorts of people who are attention hogs. And every sketch she did was about this.

 

I'm convinced that the point of these sketches, for her, was to demonstrate how objectionable attention hogs are. This had to be rooted in a deep fascination with, and loathing for, attention hogs that she observed in her life. You might say she was obsessed with them. To the point where she's chosen that same character to play every time she appears as "herself" on SNL now. (Partly I think she makes this choice because the real Wiig is the exact opposite and wouldn't make much of an impression at all as "herself" if she played the "herself"-character more true to her actual self.)

 

In sketches lampooning attention hogs, no one else will ever have a chance to express a personality. It has to be thus, because the point of them is to show how in real life, those who live with attention hogs suffer. The problem--and here I agree with you completely--is that Lorne allowed too many of these sketches into the show. Ironically, just as the attention hog dominates her surroundings, the attention hog sketches came to dominate the show. That wasn't her fault, but maybe it shows a weakness in the other material being offered up by the writers and cast. They might have gone to the well of "Wiig-plays-an-attention-hog" so often because they had nothing strong enough to put on instead.

 

I think we're in agreement on all of this. I realize the point of an attention hog sketch is that no one else gets to play a significant part, but the problem was the excess. There were so many of these sketches, and they repeated so often. Yes, she very well may have had a fascination with attention hogs and wanted to explore them in her acting. Fine, but unless she was doing research for her thesis in the process of getting her Master's in psychology or something, I see no reason why this fascination had to dominate the show for so long. None at all.

 

Furthermore, I think she needs to shoulder some of the blame for her own actions. Yes, we can blame Lorne for being such an obvious cheerleader. Yes, we can blame the writers for depending on her recurring characters too much. But no grown-ass woman should be so totally involved in her business that she doesn't realize what her need for exploration is doing to the show around her. She could have said, "You know what guys, I think [character] is getting a little stale, let's give that sketch that so-and-so did another try." Or she could have written some things that were more inclusive of other cast members. She was not a team player, which seriously bugs on a show like SNL which cannot function unless people try to work together. Did she not notice the female cast members dropping like flies around her? That level of self-involvement is unacceptable for anyone over the age of ten. Yeah, you wanna break out and be a big star, but damn so does everyone else.

[Milburn Stone]

We do agree completely.

[DowntonStabby]

About people liking the cast they watched in junior high...I was 13 when the ill-fated 1994-95 season aired, and even then, I could see it was a piece of crap, and stopped watching it after a few episodes or so. (The season before that was probably helped by Phil Hartman's final season, in retrospect, though I may be missing one or two. That man, as has been noted by myself and others, sure had a way of saving many an otherwise crap sketch.) I much preferred the few seasons before (I started watching way too young) and the seasons that aired during my college years (early '00s)--though there were a number of sketches during the late '90s that were wonderful, too--Celebrity Jeopardy, Ana Gasteyer's Martha Stewart, The View sketches, The Culps (only because I was in choir back then, and it just nailed the music teacher type)...so, while I get what they're saying, it did not apply to me. Also, if you're going to go into show business, while you don't have to adjust your act to every commenter's whim, per se, you have to have a thick enough skin to not be shocked that people are at least going to say, you know, something.

[vb68]

 

I much preferred the few seasons before (I started watching way too young) and the seasons that aired during my college years (early '00s)--

 

I think this holds to what they were saying.  I think they only meant "junior high" in a very general, loose sense of when you started watching the show regularly and got into it.   I didn't really start watching on a regular basis until high school.

 

I'm still holding out hope that the political sketches get a little sharper in the new year.  I hear Hillary is probably announcing her run sooner than later.  Again, please please let Kate do the impression over Vanessa. 

[LarryS]

I can't understand the flat out distain at her mere appearance. The woman is a trailblazer in comedy, one of the few SNL cast nominated for an Oscar, and from anything I have ever read about her, is unassumingly shy and private, and quick to give others credit.  I thought the '06-'12 years were pretty wide open with all the talented cast members getting moments to shine. Nothing like the Sandler years. 

I agree. She's absolutely superb and the best thing in anything she does (Steve Carell said that). I get why fans of others who didn't really flourish on the show might resent her success but there is no way they can legitimately say she is not one of the best ever. The show would have been a disaster without Wiig. It took Hader 4 years to come into his own. The fact is, Abby, Casey, Jenny etc didn't have the chops to compete with her, so why would Lorne keep Wiig back for somebody who may or may not land the laugh. She's already more or less there but i think she is going to ahve the best career out of any female SNL alum and she's giving the men a run for their money too. SHe is directing, writing and starring in her own movie this year. She got raves for Skeleton Twins, her movie that went to TIFF got great reviews and 2 of her new movies are premiering at Sundance. She is on fire pretty much.

 

I really respect her for turning down a BIG pay cheque when saying no to Bridesmaids 2. Somebody said earlier that Wiig seemed a little uncomfortable with the huge success of that movie and i would agree. She doesn't want to be a big celebrity. She's actually very shy and low key in real life. I remember reading an interviewer comment on her and Hader's demeanor when they were promoting Adventureland a few years ago. 

 

Hader and Wiig play his bosses, an eccentric, co-dependent couple—which is kind of how they come off during this interview (minus the couple part). Hader is relaxed and talkative and protective of Wiig, who, despite her propensity for playing loud, confident characters in unflattering costumes (see her SNL sketch “Baby Arms”), is strikingly attractive and reserved in person

Edited January 8, 2015 by LarryS

[VCRTracking]

 

It took Hader 4 years to come into his own.

 

I disagree with that. I liked him almost right away when he did Al Pacino impression in a sketch. I think he was popular early on but mostly with impressions.  It did take him a while to get a popular recurring character like Stefon.

 

The "Kristen Wiig" type of character became so well known that at the 2012 Olympics when they showed gymnast Ally Raisman's parents in the stands physically moving along with her routine, the internet was unanimous in wanting to see Wiig play Raisman's mom, even though she had left the show by that point;

Edited January 11, 2015 by VCRTracking

[Bees]

I think we're in agreement on all of this. I realize the point of an attention hog sketch is that no one else gets to play a significant part, but the problem was the excess. There were so many of these sketches, and they repeated so often. Yes, she very well may have had a fascination with attention hogs and wanted to explore them in her acting. Fine, but unless she was doing research for her thesis in the process of getting her Master's in psychology or something, I see no reason why this fascination had to dominate the show for so long. None at all.

 

Furthermore, I think she needs to shoulder some of the blame for her own actions. Yes, we can blame Lorne for being such an obvious cheerleader. Yes, we can blame the writers for depending on her recurring characters too much. But no grown-ass woman should be so totally involved in her business that she doesn't realize what her need for exploration is doing to the show around her. She could have said, "You know what guys, I think [character] is getting a little stale, let's give that sketch that so-and-so did another try." Or she could have written some things that were more inclusive of other cast members. She was not a team player, which seriously bugs on a show like SNL which cannot function unless people try to work together. Did she not notice the female cast members dropping like flies around her? That level of self-involvement is unacceptable for anyone over the age of ten. Yeah, you wanna break out and be a big star, but damn so does everyone else.

 

Thank you for so eloquently summing up the reason I despised Kristen Wiig on SNL. I honestly think that poor Nasim Pedrad never really got any chance to really shine or show off what she can do as a result of Wiig being such a show hog. And that's a damn shame.  I feel like the reason there was such a problem with women cast members on SNL traces back to Wiig a bit. Once again, it's not entirely her fault since the writers fell back on her characters too much and Lorne was way too much of a cheerleader for her.

 

That team player thing you mentioned? That's the reason why I loved Jan Hooks, Phil Hartman, Bill Hader, Tim Meadows, Ana Gasteyer, Jane Curtin, and Chris Parnell amongst others. They were team players who could do pretty much anything. And, something that I find kind of lacking on SNL a lot, they weren't afraid to play the straight man in a sketch. In fact, most them embraced the opportunity and actually ended up being the funniest part of the sketch (Meadows in Jingleheimer Junction comes immediately to mind for an example). SNL is an ensemble cast, it's not a vehicle for one star. And even then, most of those stars who had variety shows that they hosted themselves would at least let their ensemble folks shine too.

 

Also (this is for an earlier comment who talked about the Carol Burnett Show). The thing with the Carol Burnett Show vs SNL is that the former could get away with it a lot more, IMO, because they were taped. SNL is live and any time for corpsing can really take out a few minutes from the show and those could end up being crucial minutes. It's not that I don't mind if people crack up in sketches, it's that I don't think it should be done often. It should be a rarity because it makes it all the more special. Like when Phil Hartman lost his shit during Succinctly Speaking sketch. It wasn't just funny because he was breaking character but it was also because it was Phil Hartman of all people. The most stoic and professional cast member. 

[helenamonster]

I'm not big on the breaking either (and at the moment I can't think of any current cast member who does it frequently, which is good), but I was reading the Live from New York book over Christmas and I was reminded of the Debbie Downer sketch where they're in Disney World and it's just a domino effect of people not being able to keep it together, and it cracks my shit up every time. Just Rachel with tears practically coming out of her eyes trying to get out the line, "By the way, it's official: I can't have children" is enough to make my day. So I would say that's one other instance of breaking that didn't ruin a sketch but actually took it up another level. Imo, of course.

[vb68]

 

Just Rachel with tears practically coming out of her eyes trying to get out the line, "By the way, it's official: I can't have children" is enough to make my day.

 

I think part of that is what Bees was saying.  Rachel was someone who was always so professional and never did that.  Seeing her lose it was kind of astonishing.

 

On the other hand, I remember when Maya came back to host once, she and (especially) Kristin just completely lost it in a game show sketch, and while it was sorta fascinating, I didn't find it hilarious.  Vanessa was also in the sketch and refused to break. She was so stoic and determined to get through it that it was an interesting contrast.  I think it was the one time that I saw Kristin just lose it.     

[helenamonster]

Oh God I'd blocked that out. It was such a train wreck. And not the kind that I think Kristen and Maya were going for. I don't remember much of the sketch, but I don't think I found it very funny in the first place, and then they just started riding around on tricycles or something and laughing uncontrollably and I couldn't even tell if they were still following the cue cards or just going off on their own little tangent. Secondhand embarrassment to the highest power.

Edited January 17, 2015 by helenamonster

[Galileo908]

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, ...

 

 

They also had the Lawrence Welk Show as a running sketch, but they wasted that concept on a character that quickly wore out her welcome.

 

It's a problem I have with recurring sketches: It's the same damn joke every time. The only thing that changes are the people reacting to the characters. Sure, SNL has had recurring characters since Day One and lots of them were repetitive, but most of them always seemed to do something different each time. The Samurai always had a different job, Buckwheat ended up getting shot, Pat was always put into different situations, The Cheerleaders would cheer in the most random of places, etc. Stuff like "Secret Word" could've had different weird contestants every time like Celebrity Jeopardy did, but noooo, they just HAD to have Kristen Wiig be the star of the sketch.

 

Something I miss about the 90s era of this show: With so many recurring characters running around eventually they ran into each other. It was pretty rare, but they did a few parodies of "We Are The World" that involved all the recurring characters at the time (save for Tim Meadows, who wouldn't create The Ladies' Man for a few seasons) and I thought it was amazing.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Galileo908

[Traveller519]

Searing hot Weekend Update take coming in:

 

Jost and Che need to get into some freaking sketches outside of update, and build a relationship with the audience. I thought it was good having them in the Football Player intros early in the season, but they've done nothing since then. Nobody can identify them with the show because they don't do anything else. I know Tina made the transition straight from writers room to WU, but she also pulled some background duty as a fill in for other roles and had a well known Fallon to play off. Others, like Quinn and Meyers phased out their sketch work to focus more on WU. But currently, it still feels like these are two guys parachuted into the show to deliver one thing and it's coming off very one note. We see them twice an episode, in tie and jacket behind the desk, and then in street clothes during the goodbyes.

 

I know Che's stand up, and when it looks like he's going to go into a longer piece, which is where he's most comfortable, it's really good, but the one liners are hit and miss. Jost I didn't know from Adam, and to a certain degree still feel like I don't. He's been at his best when he's playing up the nerdy guy, who doesn't know how to be cool persona. Some sketches where he was playing that role in the background would help flush that out a bit more I feel.

 

Limiting cast changeover this year has paid huge dividends in people feeling more acquainted with the cast. Weekend update, while it can be good, still feels like it's a different show though, because the hosts don't do anything else.

[vb68]

From the Vintage Thread-

 

 

 

Wow, this show has brought us some great music over the years...

 

Yes, it certainly used to do that.

It feels funny to me to defend the show in this area since I agree that most of the music is filler for the most part and doesn't appeal to me, but this current season has  been the best one in forever with Prince, Kendrick Lamar, and Bruno Mars all delivering killer performances.  Most of the time the music is a bathroom break for me granted, but still every once in awhile there is a true gem. .

Edited January 21, 2015 by vb68

[Inquisitionist]

I posted that snarky second remark about the music.  :-)  It just seems to me that in its early days, SNL often (not always, but often) featured musicians that were cutting edge/underground/not well known, as well as musicians from different genres, whereas now, they're more about the hot act of the moment.  Or maybe there simply aren't any equivalents of Patti Smith or Elvis Costello in today's music? 

 

Yeah, I'm also a grumpy old person who doesn't think much of what I hear on the radio right now.

[Princess Sparkle]

You know though, I think they did that at least twice last season - they had Sam Smith on before he was big (I think they got him right before his single even came out), and St Vincent before she was performing with Nirvana at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  And even this season, we had Hozier before he hit it big,. 

 

Now, granted, twice in a season with approximately 18-19 episodes isn't a big margin.  But I think it's probably hard to balance network pressure of grabbing a big name and trying to give opportunities to up-and-coming acts.  Plus, I think we have a lot more hosts who do double duty now than before.

[vb68]

 

It just seems to me that in its early days, SNL often (not always, but often) featured musicians that were cutting edge/underground/not well known

 

 

Would that define Sia?  Judging from her performances this past weekend, for me honestly it probably would.  She didn't seem very mainstream, but maybe she was trying a little hard.  And it's very possible I'm the wrong person to try and judge that.  

Edited January 23, 2015 by vb68

[Inquisitionist]

You know though, I think they did that at least twice last season - they had Sam Smith on before he was big (I think they got him right before his single even came out), and St Vincent before she was performing with Nirvana at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  And even this season, we had Hozier before he hit it big,. 

 

I'll grant you St. Vincent, I didn't note anything cutting edge or innovative at all about Sam Smith (whose big song just sounds like a slowed down version of Tom Petty's I Won't Back Down to me). 

 

Would that define Sia?  Judging from her performances this past weekend, for me honestly it probably would.  She didn't seem very mainstream, but maybe she was trying a little hard.  And it's very possible I'm the wrong person to try and judge that.  

 

I have to admit that I've been so disappointed by this season that I stopped watching a few weeks ago.  Sounds like I might have missed something interesting with Sia.

[BrokenRemote]

Searing hot Weekend Update take coming in:

 

Jost and Che need to get into some freaking sketches outside of update, and build a relationship with the audience. I thought it was good having them in the Football Player intros early in the season, but they've done nothing since then. Nobody can identify them with the show because they don't do anything else. I know Tina made the transition straight from writers room to WU, but she also pulled some background duty as a fill in for other roles and had a well known Fallon to play off. Others, like Quinn and Meyers phased out their sketch work to focus more on WU. But currently, it still feels like these are two guys parachuted into the show to deliver one thing and it's coming off very one note. We see them twice an episode, in tie and jacket behind the desk, and then in street clothes during the goodbyes.

 

I know Che's stand up, and when it looks like he's going to go into a longer piece, which is where he's most comfortable, it's really good, but the one liners are hit and miss. Jost I didn't know from Adam, and to a certain degree still feel like I don't. He's been at his best when he's playing up the nerdy guy, who doesn't know how to be cool persona. Some sketches where he was playing that role in the background would help flush that out a bit more I feel.

 

Limiting cast changeover this year has paid huge dividends in people feeling more acquainted with the cast. Weekend update, while it can be good, still feels like it's a different show though, because the hosts don't do anything else.

I hadn't really thought of that, but you make a good point.  I know everyone fights for sketch time, and I always kind of assumed the Weekend Update anchor(s) backed off from (or were removed from) sketches because they had a guaranteed appearance every week, where everyone else had to sweet talk the writers or really pitch hard to get exposure (at least that's how it was portrayed in the behind the scense specials VH1 airs all the time).  Nevertheless, I think that giving Che and Jost just a little more contact with the audience outside of update would do a world of good.

[Kromm]

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. 

You know it's more than just the age we live in, it's also the position of the show.  Because there are probably more sketch comedy type shows on the air now than ever, they're... just not live.  But it's not really the public's responsibility to consider that. They just know they can generally cite so many other similar shows that SEEM to be funnier.  SNL suffers because of the thing that used to make it seem special, because I'm not sure anyone really CARES that it's live.  Even being topical isn't this huge advantage, because if it was taped a few hours earlier and edited, it would feel almost the same on that front.

[methodwriter85]

I think the biggest problem this show has in trying to appeal to Millennial comedic sensibilities is that we're basically programmed at this point to be able to hit up any YouTube channel/Funny or Die/CollegeHumour sketch that we like, and not have to sit through 90 minutes of crap we might not like.

 

I think to appeal to our current Millennial generation, they need to retire some old standbys that just aren't that topical anymore, like Cable Access shows and the like. 

 

I really think they should try and get more current stuff, like making fun of YouTube beauty channels, or the followers who do the Smosh or Jenna Marbles deal.

 

I did really like that they were willing to go for something that was kind of obscure with the Serial podcast deal. That was a step in the right direction. I also like them making fun of hipsters.

 

I'd like if they were also willing to skewer 90's childhood nostalgia, like this sketch. I cannot ever see SNL being able to pull something that graphic off, but it'd be great if they could pull off comedy based around the whole 90's childhood nostalgia thing.

Edited February 16, 2015 by methodwriter85

[editorgrrl]

I did really like that they were willing to go for something that was kind of obscure with the Serial podcast deal. That was a step in the right direction.

It'd be great if they could pull off comedy based around the whole 90's childhood nostalgia thing.

I like when SNL parodies stuff from before my time. It gives the sketches a weird, almost surreal quality. They're funny in their own right, and seem both familiar and WTF at the same time. Like Bill Hader as Vincent Price.

That's different from the Serial spoof, which I loved because I know the source material so well. Adnan killed (was that Kyle Mooney?). It's always fun to "get" the joke.

[VCRTracking]

One of my favorite SNL sketch spoofs of the 90s was the 70s nostalgia fest of the Partridge Family vs the Brady Bunch.

[Princess Sparkle]

That's different from the Serial spoof, which I loved because I know the source material so well. Adnan killed (was that Kyle Mooney?). It's always fun to "get" the joke.

It was.  He freaking NAILED Adnan, not just the voice, but his cadence as well.

 

ETA: Of course, now I had to go watch the sketch again.  "Yo, you didn't have my reindeer though.  Magic reindeer only know where I'm going" makes me laugh every time.  And Aidy probably doesn't get enough credit for really getting the voice of the defense attorney - it's a joke you'd only get if you listened to the podcast, but she really got that "Nancy Grace-wannabe" voice of the defense attorney down.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Princess Sparkle

[helenamonster]

I would love it if the show took more risks in terms of the more topical subjects they tackled. The Serial podcast was a great example of just parodying something without having to spoonfeed it. Like, I never listened to the podcast, but I still got most of the jokes and found it funny. Sometimes it seems like they feel they have to hit us over the head with every punchline just to make sure we get the joke, and it completely sucks out the funny. I always thought a good rule in general for television shows was to assume the audience is smarter than you think. Dumb stuff down, and it just comes off as...well, dumb.

[editorgrrl]

I would love it if the show took more risks in terms of the more topical subjects they tackled. The Serial podcast was a great example of just parodying something without having to spoonfeed it. Like, I never listened to the podcast, but I still got most of the jokes and found it funny. Sometimes it seems like they feel they have to hit us over the head with every punchline just to make sure we get the joke, and it completely sucks out the funny. I always thought a good rule in general for television shows was to assume the audience is smarter than you think. Dumb stuff down, and it just comes off as...well, dumb.

 

Agreed. And it's so easy these days to grab my phone and Google a reference that goes completely over my head. No need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[Guest]

Thinking about what disappointed me about the 40th anniversary, I think I've hit upon what I would have wanted them to do to fix SNL.  Its likely logistically impossible, but this is the only season it could have worked.  What you need is an anniversary and an entirely new cast.

 

They could have treated the entire season like new Not Ready for PrimeTime Players boot camp (like the skit in the Julia Louis Deryfus Season).  Don't cast the entire season and then have a handful of cast from prior seasons co-host throughout the anniversary year.  A learn from the best situation.  But don't do a very special Dana Carvey episode, use the new cast.  Do new material.  Update the old material, maybe hand down new versions of sketches.  Wayne and Garth are parents and their kid are doing lame shows about lame pop artists (according to Wayne) on social media.  Figure out who is the best for Update by having the co-anchor with the best of the best.

[Bees]

Thinking about what disappointed me about the 40th anniversary, I think I've hit upon what I would have wanted them to do to fix SNL.  Its likely logistically impossible, but this is the only season it could have worked.  What you need is an anniversary and an entirely new cast.

 

They could have treated the entire season like new Not Ready for PrimeTime Players boot camp (like the skit in the Julia Louis Deryfus Season).  Don't cast the entire season and then have a handful of cast from prior seasons co-host throughout the anniversary year.  A learn from the best situation.  But don't do a very special Dana Carvey episode, use the new cast.  Do new material.  Update the old material, maybe hand down new versions of sketches.  Wayne and Garth are parents and their kid are doing lame shows about lame pop artists (according to Wayne) on social media.  Figure out who is the best for Update by having the co-anchor with the best of the best.

 

Actually, that kind of reminds of me of an idea I had for a way you can do Cast Reunion Shows like that and not have it take away so much from the current cast members. I hate those Cast Reunion episodes so much with the cameos out the wazoo because it really takes away from a lot of it. 

 

My idea was that just do a cast reunion episode once a year...for the weekend of April Fool's Day. Each year, you decide upon a certain era and you get that cast together (whomever wants to take part) and even incorporate some current folks if need be, have a host who hosted frequently in that era (like the NRFPT era would have someone like Buck Henry or Candace Bergen, late 80s would have Tom Hanks, 90s would have John Goodman, etc.) and just do all those sketches we remember so fondly and use it as a way to introduce new folks to the casts of years past. It could be an event and it can also be kind of funny because imagine one's confusion when they put on the TV and there's suddenly Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray just going back and forth on stuff or something like that. That'd be fantastic. 

 

I doubt the powers that be would ever listen to me but I really think that'd be a pretty fun idea.

[Kromm]

I really think they should try and get more current stuff, like making fun of YouTube beauty channels, or the followers who do the Smosh or Jenna Marbles deal.

On top of that another way to get Millenials is to maybe start recruiting YouTube-based talent.  Admittedly they have to make sure that the people can actually do sketch comedy in front of a live audience, but I think there may be an innovative way to do that: hold a boot camp.

 

Do it up big with a whole YouTube based auditioning process.  Cull through the videos for a first round.  Pick a manageable number, but as large as they can afford since they'll have to fly people around and put them up.  Invite them to some cheap location, maybe in Toronto or Chicago or one of the cheaper parts of LA, where there's Second City or Groundlings, or UCB or some other organization they can partner with to help cull and tutor these people.  

 

Further fund the project by shooting a reality show around the boot camp process.  Also, whoever the sketch comedy brigade is that's partnered with can also "win" from this, because besides also getting some light on their own people for new SNL casting, they'll also have a shot at this new talent (the ones who don't go on to SNL).  

[methodwriter85]

To be fair to SNL, they have recruited from YouTube- Noelle Kristi is/was a YouTube comedian. But like you said, they need someone who can do it in front of a live audience.

 

I did a survey on SNL, and they asked A LOT about Weekend Update. I think a major shake-up is going to happen at the end of the season.

Edited March 4, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Kromm]

To be fair to SNL, they have recruited from YouTube- Noelle Kristi is/was a YouTube comedian. But like you said, they need someone can do it in front of a live audience.

Yeah, it's sort of a case of "right idea, wrong execution".  

 

They need to take advantage of that talent pool (as well as milk publicity from it).  But they need to also recognize the limitations of the form (that very few if any of the YouTube people will have format sketch training).  Thus the idea of a weeding out process via a boot camp, which would basically be an extended audition, but with tutoring.  And I'm serious about documenting it with a reality show.  While there's the shitty example of Glee and The Glee Project out there, the fix for that is to make sure such a project really is secondary and is more of a documentary of the process than the thing running it.  But it's some extra publicity, and even a few extra ad bucks, so why not do it?

[Princess Sparkle]

To be fair to SNL, they have recruited from YouTube- Noelle Kristi is/was a YouTube comedian. But like you said, they need someone who can do it in front of a live audience.

And not just Noelle - Beck and Kyle were both YouTube comedians, as part of Good Neighbor, and they each had their own YouTube channels with their own individual bits. And while he was a standup, Jay was first brought to the casting team's attention because of his impression videos on YouTube.

I do think they're slowly making steps to branch out from just Groundlings and Second City to find talent. Andy Samberg and the rest of the Lonely Island guys kick started it, and I think with Beck and Kyle's success (and they just hired the 3rd Good Neighbor member as a writer), they'll start going to that well a bit more often.

[vb68]

 

And while he was a standup, Jay was first brought to the casting team's attention because of his impression videos on YouTube.

 

 

That's right.  I was just about to bring up Jay.

 

 

I really think they should try and get more current stuff, like making fun of YouTube beauty channels, or the followers who do the Smosh or Jenna Marbles deal.

 

And I think  they are doing some of this type of stuff already.  I'm thinking of that sketch with Kevin Hart "Why'd You Post That?".  And the Chris Rock sketch with his daughter doing stuff on Youtube.

 

We'll see about Update.  I'm still not sure there will be more changes so soon after trying to right it this season.

[helenamonster]

I did a survey on SNL, and they asked A LOT about Weekend Update. I think a major shake-up is going to happen at the end of the season.

 

Toodle-oo, boys!

 

I love the idea of culling talent from YouTube. I don't keep up with many YouTubers anymore, but there are a few who I think would make great additions to the show, in either a writing or performing capacity. One would be Kingsley...I can't see him doing sketch work because he is, admittedly, very one-note, but he would absolutely slay at Weekend Update. Another group who I think would be perfect fits as both writers and performers would be the main crew from Most Popular Girls in School (Carlo Moss, Mark Cope, and Lily Vonnegut). I haven't watched MPGiS in ages so I don't know if its retained the same quality, but those guys have everything this show could possible be looking for. They all seem to have backgrounds in improv, since a lot of the dialogue in the videos is improvised. They're also really good, creative writers. It's actually kind of shocking how a stopmotion animation show using Barbie dolls can so expertly weave plots and subplots together while maintaining humor but without sacrificing character traits. And, they can do a variety of voices and characters (at least Carlo and Lily can; Mark's usually all sound the same). Overall, they're a very talented group of people and I would hate if they never got farther than YouTube. SNL seems like the perfect fit for them.

[Snlwatcher97]

I think it's been a meh season for me. Season 40 was so good and it made me excited for the next season and so far there's only been like 4 eps that were great and they were Tracy Morgan, Elizabeth Banks, Adam Driver and Larry David. 

[JZL]

What did everyone think of the 41st season in general, as a whole?

[burner]

I thought it was ok. I don't think it'll go down as anything more than just a "meh" season for a historical perspective. Not great, not terrible.

Personally I think the cast is way too large. My favorite SNL era is the late 80s Jan Hooks / Phil Hartman era (I'm only 31 so I didn't really "grow up" with that era). I think the main cast for that was like 10 people and this one is like 16. It just seems like a lot of people fighting for time.

[Bees]

2 hours ago, burner said:

I thought it was ok. I don't think it'll go down as anything more than just a "meh" season for a historical perspective. Not great, not terrible.

Personally I think the cast is way too large. My favorite SNL era is the late 80s Jan Hooks / Phil Hartman era (I'm only 31 so I didn't really "grow up" with that era). I think the main cast for that was like 10 people and this one is like 16. It just seems like a lot of people fighting for time.

Sweet, another Hartman/Hooks SNL Era fan that's about my age. I think it's because of Comedy Central showing those reruns every afternoon that I got into that era. Late 90s SNL was very hit or miss (mostly misses but when they hit, they hit...usually with one-shot sketches. Their recurring characters sucked.) and early 00s was pretty good but not that great. They really hit with political sketches that year.

Anyways, I thought Season 41 was fairly decent all things considered. I'd say the five best episodes are Ariana Grande, Larry David, Tracy Morgan, Fred Armisen, and Elizabeth Banks. Peter Dinklage's episode was pretty good too. And I think that there's a fairly decent balance where nobody's getting absolutely shafted (ie any female not named Kristen Wiig during that certain time period of SNL) but there's still room for some of them to grow. It'll be interesting to see what happens cast-wise. And I have to say that Weekend Update wins the most improved segment of them all. The chemistry between Jost and Che has vastly improved and it makes Update run a lot smoother.

[helenamonster]

I think that this season was a vast improvement over season 40, which was clearly a rebuilding year. And as reluctant as I am to admit it, Colin and Michael have finally gotten their act together on Update. Won't be sad when either of them eventually pack it in though; they're serviceable and get laughs out of me, but I still don't feel any kind of fondness for them like I have with past anchors.

The hosts and how much their presence played into an episode's quality was really all over the place this season. On the one hand we had great hosts that led to, imo of course, pretty good to great episodes (Tracy Morgan, Elizabeth Banks, Tina&Amy, Larry David, Ariana Grande, Peter Dinklage), but this is also the same season where they made the obvious ratings grab decision in getting Donald Trump to host, which becomes a cringier and cringier decision the closer he gets to the presidency.

I think going into next season they really need to tighten up on the political stuff. This is one of the most contentious elections in US history...hopefully the writers pay attention to the developments over the summer and the fall is full of really sharp material.

I also agree that the cast is way too bloated. Jon is the obvious first choice to walk the plank (seriously, what did he bring to this season besides the Dirty Dancing bit on Update?). And I know this won't help the show's diversity problem, but I wouldn't be at all sad to finally, finally, say goodbye to Kenan. He's plateaued as a performer...I doubt we'll ever see anything from him that we haven't seen a million times already. The longer he stays on the show, the more out of place he seems. I mean, I just think of all the cast members that joined the show after him and left before him, most notably Jason Sudeikis, Andy Samberg, Bill Hader, and Kristen Wiig. I mean, the next oldest cast member is Bobby, for crying out loud. They just seem like they're from two different eras.

I wouldn't be surprised either way if Sasheer stays on or leaves, honestly. Again, I realize this is controversial regarding diversity, but I don't think she brings much of anything to the show. Her Update bits are weak and that's kind of all she has going for her. However, she's been bland her whole time on the show and they still haven't dumped her so if she's back again next season it won't really surprise me. The only thing that would surprise me at this point is if she stays and manages to do anything that leaves a lasting impression on me.

Finally, this is probably unpopular, but I could do without Kyle as well. The show doesn't seem to be into the Good Neighbor stuff as much anymore, and I don't think he has much range in those or in live sketches. He uses the same voice/cadence/mannerisms in all of his characters, and he's not a particularly good impressionist.

I'm also not super big on Pete either, but I doubt he's going anywhere. I get the appeal, I'm just immune to it.

[Mumbles]

Not a complaint, not a grievance, just an observation that their repeats of their fall pre-election shows are an interesting if not poignant/horrifying as time capsules. Last night's Lin-Manuel Miranda rerun ran the weekend of the pussy-snatch tape and boy, the scene in the cold-open of people dancing and partying at the Clinton headquarters....ouch.

[Phishbulb]

I feel like a lot of last season is not going to age well. Even the Dave Chappelle episode, which was undeniably great, was so specific to the feeling that was going on in the world that week that it's not particularly entertaining to re-watch now.