Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  21 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 5:24 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: "Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker" <icebrea...@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 05:27:57 -0400
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 5:27 am
Subject: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
So far, so bad. I watched the show last night with Sarah Michelle Gellar and
was able to make it through the first hour only because I was sure there had
to be at least A LAUGH somewhere in the show. I was wrong. Not only did I
not laugh, but there were long periods of silence from the audience. Silence
so complete you could have heard a pin drop. Where to begin?

Well, for a second straight week, Dick Cheney is used to help open the show.
Much like a B-2, the bit bombed. It was bad enough last week to have to
endure the Cheney bit, but it's worse when the producers clearly don't learn
from their previous mistakes.

The only highlight of the show was the title sequence with the accompanying
SNL score (which is a pretty catchy tune). That was followed by a bizarrely
boring and unfunny monologue that starts off as if Gellar is going to play a
guitar but she quits when she realizes her comments have offended real-life
vampires (the bit may have been worth more than a chuckle if they'd actually
put someone in the audience who was into real-life vampirism and not some
caricature of Dracula).

That is then immediately followed by a commercial for childrens pajamas that
also serves as dust busters/floor cleans (oh Lord, stop me now before my
sides split from so much laughter...I can..hardly....contain.......myself).

That was then followed up immediately by a sketch involving three safety
team members coming into a high school and giving all the wrong types of
advice (like don't use condoms but if you do, prick a hole in the end of the
condom to allow bacteria room to breathe). This COULD HAVE been funny, but
it never was. Talented players like Fallon and Dratch were forced to play it
straight off of three leads who were just not funny if their lives depended
on it. The one guy who was a safety team member looked like he used to be on
Kids In The Hall (but that couldn't be the same guy, could it?)

The Weekend Update segment was tragic in every sense of the word. I used to
think Norm MacDonald's stint on WU was the all-time low for this segment,
but i'm beginning to wonder if the Fey/Fallon combination will blow
MacDonald out of the water. Sad thing is, I've seen reruns of last season on
E! and it was funny and you believed Fallon and Fey were having a good time.
Now they just look like they are going through the motions. Were new writers
brought in over the summer? Did anyone leave? I mean seriously, not a single
solitary laugh was to be found throughout that whole segment.

The one sketch that had the most potential was the Christina Aguilera
"Dirty" video segment, which poked fun at what a whore this girl has
publicly turned into. That was clearly the point behind the sketch and it
was comforting to know that SNL still had its pulse on what the rest of
America was apparently beginning to feel. That still didn't translate into
any laughs though. Maybe some minor chuckles. The acting was fine and Fallon
did the best he could with the material he was given, but clearly the
writing is just not sharp, intelligent or witty. It leaves much to be
desired.

What I find galling is to hear the long stretches of silence that the
audience is suffering through, only to roar in applause as the sketch ends
and we segue into a commercial break. It's extremely phony. I realize that
the audience is prompted by the studio when to applaud, but one has to
wonder if the audience put some extra effort into their thunderous clapping
because they were truly grateful their misery had just ended and another
sketch was mercifully put out to pasture.
_______________

Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker - "What are you boy? Some kind of doomsday machine?"


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Pappy  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 5:46 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: "Pappy" <d...@not.email.me>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:42:41 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 5:42 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

> Well, for a second straight week, Dick Cheney is used to help open the
show.
> Much like a B-2, the bit bombed. It was bad enough last week to have to
> endure the Cheney bit, but it's worse when the producers clearly don't
learn
> from their previous mistakes.

That was supposed to be Cheney?  I came in with about 15 seconds left to
that bit, I thought it was a bad Dubya impression.

> That is then immediately followed by a commercial for childrens pajamas
that
> also serves as dust busters/floor cleans (oh Lord, stop me now before my
> sides split from so much laughter...I

can..hardly....contain.......myself).

Yup, that was a real head-scratcher.

> The Weekend Update segment was tragic in every sense of the word. I used
to
> think Norm MacDonald's stint on WU was the all-time low for this segment

I never figured this out - I actually liked Norm's version of WU.  People
seem to either have loved him or hated him at it.

But yes, I couldn't find anything redeeming in this one, either.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
dan.  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 9:10 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: "dan." <television...@att.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:08:36 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 9:08 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
And, you're suprised that it's 0 for 2.  I gave up on this series a few
decades ago and never regretted it.

dan

"Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker" <icebrea...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uqiepss9ne4a61@corp.supernews.com...

can..hardly....contain.......myself).


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Peter J.  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 9:34 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: rhfan88...@aol.com (Peter J.)
Date: 13 Oct 2002 13:31:39 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 9:31 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

>"Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker" icebrea...@mindspring.com wrote:

>So far, so bad. I watched the show last night with Sarah Michelle Gellar and
>was able to make it through the first hour only because I was sure there had
>to be at least A LAUGH somewhere in the show. I was wrong. Not only did I
>not laugh, but there were long periods of silence from the audience. Silence
>so complete you could have heard a pin drop. Where to begin?

There were laughs as well.

The spoof of Steven the Dell guy was hilarious, and I enjoyed some of the fake
ads (mainly the one about "our jobs and money are gone - we hate you Sadaam!")

>Talented players like Fallon and Dratch were forced to play it
>straight off of three leads who were just not funny if their lives depended
>on it.

What would that genius Fallon have done? Snickered and giggled his way through
the sketch? Amy Poehler (one of the leads) has more talent in her fingernail
than he has in his whole body.

> I used to
>think Norm MacDonald's stint on WU was the all-time low for this segment,

You must have avoided the Colin Quinn years.

You obviously don't like the current SNL, and I can understand that. What I
don't understand is why you think Fallon would make this better. Were you
actually laughing more last year, when he pissed on so many sketches by
breaking up in them? Is that now considered great humor?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
drumslut  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 9:54 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: drumslut <tra...@mccartneydontspamme.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 08:46:14 -0500
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 9:46 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 05:27:57 -0400, "Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker"

<icebrea...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>That is then immediately followed by a commercial for childrens pajamas that
>also serves as dust busters/floor cleans (oh Lord, stop me now before my
>sides split from so much laughter...I can..hardly....contain.......myself).

This was the only thing I laughed at, and only at the end when those
kids were so over-the-top elated at being covered in dirt and
dustbunnies.

ds


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
ShimShalaBim  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 10:56 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: lola...@NOSPAMhotamil.com (ShimShalaBim)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 14:53:58 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 10:53 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
It was painful to watch. The opening monologue was torture, and you're
absolutely correct-loads of time when the audience didn't even react.
I turned it off halfway through the first skit.
This is the worst season in a long time.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 05:27:57 -0400, "Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker"


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Peter J.  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 12:44 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: rhfan88...@aol.com (Peter J.)
Date: 13 Oct 2002 16:39:26 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

>lola...@NOSPAMhotamil.com  (ShimShalaBim) wrote:

>It was painful to watch. The opening monologue was torture, and you're
>absolutely correct-loads of time when the audience didn't even react.
>I turned it off halfway through the first skit.
>This is the worst season in a long time.

If you turned off that early, how do you know the rest of the show was bad?

SNL has been this way, very uneven, for several years now. The only difference
is that because Will Ferrell is gone, the fans and the press are now paying
attention. I don't know why people are now finding fault with what has been
there for quite a long time.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Billie  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 12:44 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: pusssyk...@aol.com (Billie )
Date: 13 Oct 2002 16:38:25 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 12:38 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

>I was sure there had
>to be at least A LAUGH somewhere in the show. I was wrong.

Yeah, well wait until next week...Sen. John McCain is the host, and we all know
how good he is at comedy. What are they thinking?

Billie

"STUPIDITY IS NOT A HANDICAP. Park elsewhere!"

AGC FAQ and FUN STUFF:
http://www.dreamwater.net/agc/mainpages/agcfaq.html
BLIND ITEM REHASH:
http://www.dreamwater.net/agc/blinditems/mainpage.html


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sophie  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 12:48 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: "Sophie" <fakeaddr...@home.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:54:15 -0400
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 12:54 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

>Yeah, well wait until next week...Sen. John McCain is the host, and we all
know
>how good he is at comedy. What are they thinking?
>Billie

What - really??  Who's the musical guest?  I might actually have to tape
this one (can't stay up that late - am I old or what - lol).

--
Sophie
See us at http://www.mcgehees.com
"No one should pass an American in uniform without saying "Thank you, we are
grateful."
Always mindful that they are prepared to risk all their dreams so that all
of us can reach ours."
- former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Peter J.  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 1:20 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: rhfan88...@aol.com (Peter J.)
Date: 13 Oct 2002 17:15:25 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 1:15 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

>pusssyk...@aol.com  (Billie ) wrote:

>Yeah, well wait until next week...Sen. John McCain is the host, and we all
>know
>how good he is at comedy. What are they thinking?

I'll take him over another teen idol.

It all depends on the writing. They used to have good shows with non-actors as
hosts.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
CliffB  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 1:24 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: CliffB <fl...@gosympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:17:08 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
in article 20021013093139.14666.00001...@mb-fw.aol.com, Peter J. at
rhfan88...@aol.com wrote on 10/13/02 9:31 AM:

You are correct, his in-skit laughter was the cheap cue to the audience
that, yes, hilarious things were in fact happening, and even if you didn't
get it, now's the time to guffaw, because, after all, the witty and knowing
Jim Fallon is splitting his gut over the sophisticated funny business.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 2:24 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: "Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker" <icebrea...@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 14:28:08 -0400
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
"Peter J." <rhfan88...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20021013123926.25886.00000065@mb-fh.aol.com...

> SNL has been this way, very uneven, for several years now. The only
difference
> is that because Will Ferrell is gone,

Say what? Ferrell wasn't the end-all, be-all of the show. He had his moments
but the show can definitely live on without him.

> the fans and the press are now paying
> attention. I don't know why people are now finding fault with what has
been
> there for quite a long time.

I'm accutely aware of the unevenness of the show. The quality goes in
cycles. Personally I don't consider the loss of Gasteyer or Ferrell that
big. If they had to leave, I wish they'd take Chris Parnell with them (he's
the white version of Tim Meadows: consistently unfunny. If he made the cut
with Jimmy Fallon, I shudder to think of the people who applied to get on
SNL that Lorne Michaels actually thought had less talent that Parnell).

The two new shows of the season haven't just been mediocre...they've been
awfully bad. Did MAD-TV think they really couldn't stand head-to-head
competition against this? At 12: 30 I turned over to MAD-TV and within 30
seconds had laughed as much as I had in a whole hour of SNL.
_______________

Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker - "What are you boy? Some kind of doomsday machine?"


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Peter J.  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 5:06 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: rhfan88...@aol.com (Peter J.)
Date: 13 Oct 2002 20:57:32 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

>"Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker" icebrea...@mindspring.com wrote:

>Say what? Ferrell wasn't the end-all, be-all of the show. He had his moments
>but the show can definitely live on without him.

I'm glad you agree. So many don't.

>I'm accutely aware of the unevenness of the show. The quality goes in
>cycles. Personally I don't consider the loss of Gasteyer or Ferrell that
>big. If they had to leave, I wish they'd take Chris Parnell with them (he's
>the white version of Tim Meadows: consistently unfunny. If he made the cut

Chris is the straight man, the person who plays the supporting role. Sometimes
he gets to step into the limelight and do more. He isn't perfect, but I enjoy
him far more than I do Horatio Sanz, Fallon, Chris Kattan, Dean Edwards, etc. I
wish they hadn't chosen him to play Bush though. I wish they'd do away with
those sketches altogether.

> If he made the cut
>with Jimmy Fallon, I shudder to think of the people who applied to get on
>SNL that Lorne Michaels actually thought had less talent that Parnell).

There are probably thousands out there who have less talent than Parnell. You
call him the white Tim Meadows, which I don't totally agree with, but Tim had
some funny moments as well. People like him and Chris are taken for granted
while people like Chris Farley fall over tables, or Horatio Sanz sneers at the
camera and jokes about bongs.

>The two new shows of the season haven't just been mediocre...they've been
>awfully bad.

The first was. Last night's had it's moments. Hopefully the third will continue
to improve.

 Did MAD-TV think they really couldn't stand head-to-head

>competition against this? At 12: 30 I turned over to MAD-TV and within 30
>seconds had laughed as much as I had in a whole hour of SNL.
>_______________

I'm glad MAD's improved, because by the time I quit watching at the beginning
of last season, I had only laughed once or twice in a 6-month period. They
managed to drive their recurring characters and bad impressions into the ground
even faster than SNL does. I guess I should watch again, but I was burned so
bad the last time, it doesn't seem to be worth the commitment.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Colcannon Bacstai  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 8:34 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: "Colcannon Bacstai" <bippi...@excite.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:32:21 -0500
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
I think MADtv's reruns are more a result of the baseball playoffs rather
than SNL.

You think MADtv's funny now? Shoulda caught it during the first few season..
they were golden! :)

___________________________________
Webmaster - http://www.bippiboy.com/
Creator/Co-Moderator - http://pub57.ezboard.com/bdebheads
Keeper of the Animated Clerks Timeline -
http://www.bippiboy.com/tracer/tracer.htm


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
AnthonyM1970  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 10:12 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: anthonym1...@aol.comdown (AnthonyM1970)
Date: 14 Oct 2002 01:59:18 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
Best line of the night was on WU Tina Fey said "Justin Guarini from American
Idol just signed a record deal..... for 99 cents he gets 10 CDs."

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker  
View profile  
 More options Oct 13 2002, 10:50 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: "Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker" <icebrea...@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 22:53:51 -0400
Local: Sun, Oct 13 2002 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
"AnthonyM1970" <anthonym1...@aol.comdown> wrote in message

news:20021013215918.09534.00000917@mb-cb.aol.com...

> Best line of the night was on WU Tina Fey said "Justin Guarini from
American
> Idol just signed a record deal..... for 99 cents he gets 10 CDs."

And that's the reason why the show is awful right now.
_______________

Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker - "What are you boy? Some kind of doomsday machine?"


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Peter J.  
View profile  
 More options Oct 14 2002, 9:58 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: rhfan88...@aol.com (Peter J.)
Date: 14 Oct 2002 13:30:32 GMT
Local: Mon, Oct 14 2002 9:30 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

>"Sheriff J.W. Icebreaker" icebrea...@mindspring.com wrote:

>"AnthonyM1970" <anthonym1...@aol.comdown> wrote in message
>news:20021013215918.09534.00000917@mb-cb.aol.com...
>> Best line of the night was on WU Tina Fey said "Justin Guarini from
>American
>> Idol just signed a record deal..... for 99 cents he gets 10 CDs."

>And that's the reason why the show is awful right now.
>_______________

I'd think a better reason would have been no funny lines. That was a *good*
line.

I also enjoyed her protest cries against the Jewish Federation League, or
whatever the title was (not because of them, because it was funny and
unexpected).

Most of the Update jokes are usually funny. They were on the last one. They
weren't very good on the premiere though.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
AnthonyM1970  
View profile  
 More options Oct 14 2002, 11:12 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: anthonym1...@aol.comdown (AnthonyM1970)
Date: 14 Oct 2002 14:55:39 GMT
Local: Mon, Oct 14 2002 10:55 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
<< From: rhfan88...@aol.com  (Peter J.) >>

<<

>"AnthonyM1970" <anthonym1...@aol.comdown> wrote in message
>news:20021013215918.09534.00000917@mb-cb.aol.com...
>> Best line of the night was on WU Tina Fey said "Justin Guarini from
>American
>> Idol just signed a record deal..... for 99 cents he gets 10 CDs."

>And that's the reason why the show is awful right now.
>_______________

I'd think a better reason would have been no funny lines. That was a *good*
line.  >>

Yes it was a good line but in a 90 minute show to have just one laugh out loud
line is pretty sad.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Peter J.  
View profile  
 More options Oct 14 2002, 11:24 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: rhfan88...@aol.comhatespam (Peter J.)
Date: 14 Oct 2002 15:10:20 GMT
Local: Mon, Oct 14 2002 11:10 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

>anthonym1...@aol.comdown  (AnthonyM1970) wrote:

>Yes it was a good line but in a 90 minute show to have just one laugh out
>loud
>line is pretty sad.

I laughed a few times. If not for some of those huge bombs that took up so much
time (like the Christina "dirrrrrrrty" sketch), there probably would have been
more laughs.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ed R.  
View profile  
 More options Oct 14 2002, 7:58 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: Ed R. <edonl...@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:01:01 -0400
Local: Mon, Oct 14 2002 8:01 pm
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2
On 14 Oct 2002 15:10:20 GMT, rhfan88...@aol.comhatespam (Peter J.)
wrote:

>>anthonym1...@aol.comdown  (AnthonyM1970) wrote:

>>Yes it was a good line but in a 90 minute show to have just one laugh out
>>loud
>>line is pretty sad.

>I laughed a few times. If not for some of those huge bombs that took up so much
>time (like the Christina "dirrrrrrrty" sketch), there probably would have been
>more laughs.

Many of the sketches seem to drag on for a long time.  They might be
funny for the first minute or two, but after a while they become long
and tiring.  The Christina skit is a perfect example.

EdR


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
clearlight  
View profile  
 More options Oct 15 2002, 3:02 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities
From: redsunsett...@modemnet.net (clearlight)
Date: 15 Oct 2002 00:02:54 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 15 2002 3:02 am
Subject: Re: SNL 2002-2003 season = 0 for 2

> Many of the sketches seem to drag on for a long time.  They might be
> funny for the first minute or two, but after a while they become long
> and tiring.  The Christina skit is a perfect example.

It's an SNL rule of thumb: If the sketch is great, it will be over too
quick, but if it's terrible with no potential whatsoever, it will be
stretched and padded into a marathon.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »