Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

SNL in the Media


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

So Ghostbusters is becoming some sort of Marvel-esque franchise, complete with his-and-hers films.

 

http://deadline.com/2015/03/ghostbusters-channing-tatum-joe-and-anthony-russo-drew-pearce-ivan-reitman-dan-aykroyd-1201388917/

 

Where the hell do I even start with this bullshit?

 

I'm willing to bet a semester's worth of tuition that Sony is freaking that men aren't going to see an all-female Ghostbusters and are making another all-male one to compromise. Because Ghostbusters movies are apparently like public restrooms: only one sex in each one, no mixing, God forbid!

 

Also, Ghostbusters is cool and everything, but does it really have the kind of universe that can expand into television and whatnot? Marvel has decades of history and dozens of characters to play around with, and Ghostbusters just doesn't. I know the article says they've got a "Bible" from the '80s with a bunch of the original branding ideas. Yes, because the entertainment industry hasn't changed at all since then. Not one iota.

 

Who knows, it could all work out, but I just don't think the source material is diverse enough for this kind of franchise.

Carvey's been in the media and in appearances a lot the past year or so, and it's helped me come to the conclusion that his talent has aged well, unlike, lets say Martin Short's.  

I thought Martin Short's recent turn as host was one of the funniest shows SNL has done in years.

 

For those of you who didn't watch the Film Independent Spirit Awards on IFC, co-hosted by Fred Armisen and Kristen Bell, there was some SNL fun.

 

In case you missed seeing more SNL fun between Kristen Wiig and Fred...

Thanks for the warning so I can avoid it.

  • Love 3

Probably the best article on Kate McKinnon's brilliant impersonation of Hillary Clinton. It is so tough to rid myself of nostalgia but I would be deluding myself not to see this as a whole other level when it comes to an impersonation over the ones that were previously done. The article also smartly points out how it will be important for McKinnon to find the humanity there. No doubt she will. Only difference is I would go with Hooks for # 2 instead of Poehler's.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/kate-mckinnons-genius-hillary-impersonation

  • Love 1

Am I the only one not impressed with Hooks' Hillary? I feel it was just like her other impressions of political wives.

 

Technically neither she nor Hartman were on point, but their acting talents helped to make them much more believable for me. I've seen some of the impressions of Hillary at that time and they're so focused on how she looked or her speech patterns that they don't get the inner life. I can't say I ever sat there and thought, "Jan Hooks IS Hillary," nor did I believe that Hillary ran the White House, or that Hillary was beating Bill up (probably one of the darker-tinged sketches on SNL in that era or any era), but I was riveted to how she and Phil played those roles together.

 

I'm sure that McKinnon is better at the p's and q's, it's just that, like most SNL impressions in recent years that focus so much on the look or what have you, there's no inner life, and it's focused on very easy jokes that everyone has already heard a million times (Hillary is ambitious! Hillary has bad social skills!) The cheap seats mentality is one of the reasons why SNL has faded more and more from pop culture relevance.

 Only difference is I would go with Hooks for # 2 instead of Poehler's.

 

Poehler was very funny in those sketches but I never thought she was even really playing Clinton. It just came across as a template of the woman who was crushed under the heel of society's and man's expectations (which is one of the reasons it worked for me).

  • Love 3

One of the things I found most interesting about McKinnon's Hilary last time out was that while I wasn't really finding it funny, the longer I listened the more I realized it was accurate. You're right that a spot-on impression is not inherently funny or entertaining, but for me, I'd rather one start with a foundation of accurate, and then add to it, and exaggerate from there for effect. So, for me, I think it was in a good place for feeling out where they might want to go with Hilary. I know not everyone feels this way, but for me it's easier to win me over if it sounds like the person, and then add the funny, vs starting with something that might be more engaging, but if it doesn't remind me of the real person, they'll lose me.

  • Love 1

I think Kate's Hillary is pretty brilliant, so I'm with The New Yorker on this. I think it's miles better than Poehler's or anyone who's ever done her, honestly. She makes it her own and it feels accurate, so I have to agree that for me it's one of the great SNL political impersonations already, and I also hope we can see it for years to come.

 

And to be honest, I really think it's overstated that an SNL impersonation can do a ton of damage to somebody (Palin notwithstanding), especially Hillary, who, as the article mentions, has been being impersonated for 25 YEARS. I mean, when a person's been a familiar public figure for that long, how can her sixth or seventh SNL impersonation suddenly do her brand new harm? It's not like everyone doesn't already know her or her characteristics by now.

 

I think all that's overblown. Sarah Palin was a different story because she had just come on the scene and no one knew who the hell she was, and suddenly she's running for VP.

I think Kate's Hillary is pretty brilliant, so I'm with The New Yorker on this. I think it's miles better than Poehler's or anyone who's ever done her, honestly. She makes it her own and it feels accurate, so I have to agree that for me it's one of the great SNL political impersonations already, and I also hope we can see it for years to come.

 

I think Kate's Hillary is the equivalent of Dana Carvey's George H.W. Bush impression.

 

It's sort of an angle on her, not a dead-on impression.

 

The problem, especially with the Obama impressionists, is they try to be too dead-on.

  • Love 2

I like ScarJo a lot and I'm looking forward to her. Don't care about Wiz Khalifa.

 

Reese Witherspoon? Hmm. Legally Blonde is a fave but I can't say I really feel one way or the other about her. Florence Welch, however, is a true goddess among women and I'm stoked she's gonna be on (and that I called her as a musical guest, just got the date wrong).

 

Louis C.K. is always fun on this show, so I'm hoping he can help them close the season on a high note. And I know the Lonely Island guys aren't here anymore, but is it too much ask for Shy Ronnie 3?

  • Love 1

I thought Reese Witherspoon did a great job on that first post-9/11 episode. That had to be a really tough show to do considering the mood of the country in general, but add in being within shouting distance of the Pile, and it had to be a hard week. "Interspecies Beach" will always be one of my favorite, bizarre little sketches. I try to work 'getting freaky with a flounder' into conversation whenever possible, but it's really difficult.

I'm bummed that Jon Hamm isn't hosting this season. I figured with Mad Men ending in a few weeks, he'd be an obvious choice.

 

 

I might be wrong, but wasn't Ben Stiller supposed to do that show and he backed out, and Reese had to save the day?

I feel like he was supposed to host the episode after, and the attitude amongst the crew was "Well Reese just did it, why can't you?" Marci Klein goes off on him at length in the Live From New York book. 

I can't believe I'm defending Ben Stiller, but given that he's a native New Yorker I think there just might be a slim chance that he was more personally affected by the tragedy than a young woman who was raised in Germany and Nashville and likely lived on the opposite side of the country at the time. I can't begin to guess how I might react if there were a massive terrorist attack in my home city that changed the view outside my windows.

Well, I think the story wasn't that he didn't want to do the show period - he was supposed to do the second episode of the season, and he pulled out with the excuse of "I'm too shaken up by 9/11", however, he was still doing press for Zoolander on talk shows, whose release had been moved up by a week. Marci Klein said he (or his people) wanted him switched to host the first episode of the season to coincide with the movie coming out the day before, and have Reese bumped to the second episode, and when that request was refused, he pulled out. Sean William Scott was the one that was pulled in at the last minute, and did a fairly good job.

I mean, he did host eventually, so it can't have been held against him too much. But between this, and Janine Garafalo saying that you can't joke around with him too much because he'll take it the wrong way, has always made me think he's extremely thin-skinned.

Edited by Princess Sparkle
  • Love 2

I remember it the same way as Princess Sparkle.  I definitely remember Marci calling him out for still doing  press the week of that show.  Both Reese Witherspoon and Seann William Scott were great hosts and just very classy all the way through during  a few weeks that had to be hard on everyone.

 

I'll take a minority view on Louis CK.  I find him somewhat overrated.  Not that I dislike him, but he's more of a "meh" for me.  I'm a little disappointed he's hosting the finale.

Edited by vb68
  • Love 1
(edited)

Re: Scarlett and Reese

 

In my opinion these are 2 high calibre, A-list actors with proven comedic abilities.  Reese has proven to be funny (Election, Friends, Legally Blonde) and Scarlett has proven herself as an actress in great romantic comedies (Scoop, Match Point more a romantic drama, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona).  And I thought Scarlett was great this week, and whatever time she hosted when she did the vases skit.  I'm all for more female hosts and these 2 have me particularly excited.  

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Love 1

Top 40 moments from season 40.  40-21 here.  I agree with the assessment that Japanese Messy Boy only works because of how J.K. Simmons delivered it.

 

I am perplexed by the qualifier of #30 ("which made up for the odd choice of having Aidy Bryant in several of scenarios"). Are they just anti-Aidy on principle and think it requires no explanation?

  • Love 4

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...