Fat, lazy, dull 'Saturday Night Live' endures
Ubiquitous
Here's a strange, enduring television mystery: Why nobody is trying to
kill off "Saturday Night Live." Or maybe it's equally strange that
somebody tried but nobody noticed.
Yes, Fox's "Mad TV" - which began in 1995 and isn't supposed to end its
14-season run until May - put up a sporadically memorable fight in the
effort to unseat "Saturday Night Live," but the brutal truth is that
more people will be shocked to hear that "Mad TV" is still on the air
than have actually seen the sketch series. You can't kill an institution
by being invisible.
And despite the admirable longevity, "Mad TV" in some ways created a
chilling effect on real competition. It was held up as proof that you
couldn't beat "SNL," that the late-night crowd felt a brand loyalty
passed down through generations.
That conveniently ignores a couple of compelling factors. "SNL" has a
woeful track record in terms of being funny. While the recent
presidential election finally gave it the hilarity it had been missing
for years, even in the seasons where it was creatively resurgent, the
show was always hit and miss, and when it misses, it misses badly.
"Mad TV" being the only real competition was perfect for "SNL." This
isn't some Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. It's more like the Yankees versus a
Triple-A farm club in the boondocks. It's not hard to be the dominant
brand when so few people know there's an alternative.
Vulnerable franchise
Why, then, hasn't someone stepped up and taken a chance to kill what has
to be the most vulnerable franchise on television? A network or cable
channel with real vision should be seeking out a heavy hitter - Will
Ferrell, Chris Rock, Ben Stiller, Jon Stewart, Ricky Gervais, Judd
Apatow come quickly to mind - who could conceive of, produce and make
popular a show to rival a long-in-the-tooth, creatively listless
enterprise like "SNL."
You have to wonder what the downside could be. "Saturday Night Live"
succeeded when it premiered in 1975 even though nobody really knew its
comedians and writers. It was an inexpensive gambit. Nothing has changed
today. A rival show could be created relatively cheaply - especially
compared with the soaring costs of scripted series. The potential return
on the investment - a must-see program with buzz - could help audience
flow throughout the late-night hours.
That brings up the one clear sticking point - the logjam of late-night
talk shows. Consider that not too long ago, conventional wisdom was that
nobody could topple a franchise like "The Tonight Show" with Johnny
Carson. It was a TV staple that sent generations to bed.
Nobody challenged it - until someone did, and look what happened. A
cluster of variously successful talk show franchises. Only now they've
reached the critical mass of redundancy. The format is tired. Why not
try something else?
It doesn't have to be exactly a sketch show. It can be a combination
of elements. There's a reason the television industry is rife with
copycats - they work. Familiarity gives entree. So any new show should
have sketches, musical guests and rotating celebrity hosts.
But that doesn't mean innovation can't take place within that framework.
Shorten the sketches, for starters, and perhaps cut the length of the
show to one hour. "SNL" is nothing if not bloated.
Think of the opportunity. "SNL" writers and performers actually
believe - to a crippling degree - that they are the funniest people on
the planet. They believe that their sketches don't need to be edited,
and if the sketches don't work, so what? Just repeat them next week. And
the week after.
The writers and performers believe that nobody can touch them (where's
the competition, right?) and that they are the keepers of the flame
passed from John Belushi, Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd. (Never mind that
the number of truly funny people divided by the number of years "SNL"
has been on the air leaves something to be desired.)
Path to fame?
Current "SNL" members believe that a stint on the show will lead to
movie roles and comedy fame, which is only occasionally true. They are
cocky and content.
Which makes them vulnerable.
Does Apatow know some funny people - maybe some actors? Do you think
Stiller, Rock, Gervais and Stewart associate with brilliant comics or
writers? Given Ferrell's Funny or Die Web site, wouldn't he be a natural
as, say, someone who can aggregate talented, hungry newcomers? Give them
an executive producer hat and a willing network and let's see what could
happen.
The odds of success for a venture like this are much greater now - if
the show is done correctly - than the bid "Mad TV" made. First off, the
Internet's viral capacity is better than any promotion "Mad TV" ever got
from Fox. That proliferation of talk shows? They're waiting to promote
new stars. And viewers have to be hungry for something hip and
different. "SNL" is fat, lazy and arrogant. And not nearly as funny as
its reputation.
There's a crown - and an audience and some profit - ready to be taken.
So where are the challengers?
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.
Barry Margolin
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> Yes, Fox's "Mad TV" - which began in 1995 and isn't supposed to end its
> 14-season run until May
Why is this referring to May in the future tense?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Dougie Roberts
news:leKdncCjAJ7BpMDX...@giganews.com...
> by Tim Goodman
>
> Here's a strange, enduring television mystery: Why nobody is trying to
> kill off "Saturday Night Live." Or maybe it's equally strange that
> somebody tried but nobody noticed.
Kill off The Simpsons first. Even though SNL is pretty mediocre a lot of the
time, at least once in awhile they'll produce something hilarious like Dick
in a Box, Lazy Sunday, Tiny Fey's Palin, etc... stuff that is way more
entertaining than anything The Simpson's has done in the last decade.
There's nothing else on when SNL is on, leave it alone... :-)
writerpatrick.webs.com
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:leKdncCjAJ7BpMDX...@giganews.com...
> by Tim Goodman
>
> Here's a strange, enduring television mystery: Why nobody is trying to
> kill off "Saturday Night Live." Or maybe it's equally strange that
> somebody tried but nobody noticed.
>
SNL is NBCs generic comedy show, just like Law and Order is their generic
cop show. If they removed it they could only replace it with infomercials.
It's got to be one of the cheapest shows the network throws together. NBC
doesn't even have to make money from the show. They can use it to break in
new writers and comics that they can use for their sitcoms.
> Yes, Fox's "Mad TV" - which began in 1995 and isn't supposed to end its
> 14-season run until May - put up a sporadically memorable fight in the
> effort to unseat "Saturday Night Live," but the brutal truth is that
> more people will be shocked to hear that "Mad TV" is still on the air
> than have actually seen the sketch series. You can't kill an institution
> by being invisible.
>
Like SNL, Mad TV was good in it's first year or two when it was actually
edgy, but then they started becoming a clone of themselves and replacing the
performers until they just wound up with a bunch of people nobody cares
about.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmc...@gmail.com
Central Hub (Access to podcasts, blog and web stores):
http://writerpatrick.webs.com
My Toy Store: http://patrickjmcnamara.webs.com
Book Store: http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=139581
Ubiquitous
>Kill off The Simpsons first. Even though SNL is pretty mediocre a lot of the
>time, at least once in awhile they'll produce something hilarious like Dick
>in a Box,
Talk about "damning with faint praise"!
Patrick McNamara
web...@polaris.net wrote:
>
>
> Fat, lazy, dull 'Saturday Night Live' endures
> Tim Goodman
>
> Friday, May 1, 2009
>
>
>
> Here's a strange, enduring television mystery: Why nobody is trying to
> kill off "Saturday Night Live." Or maybe it's equally strange that
> somebody tried but nobody noticed.
>
What would they replace it with?
The fact is the original SNL died a long time ago when all the original
members left. What's there now is like the tenth generation of the show.
And while SNL probably isn't worth it's airtime, what are they going to put
in it's place? It's late night Saturday. As long as it's getting a 1.0 it's
worth keeping on the air. It's still fairly cheap to make since it's mostly
just a bunch of people doing skits. They have no trouble getting guest stars
since there's always someone plugging something and everyone wants to claim
they hosted SNL.
MAD TV was good in it's first year, and somewhat decent in it's second. It
was what SNL use to be while also being an irreverent take on SNL. It was
edgy comedy. But they fell into the same trap as SNL and started replacing
all the talent as well as softening down the tone and eliminating all the
comedy in the process.
For the longest time the SNL comics were using the show to bide their time
before getting into movies, and they still are. They don't care about the
show and neither do I. I haven't bothered with SNL in a long time and even
try to avoid the specials the appear.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmc...@gmail.com
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Blue Hot Gossip comedy: http://bluehotgossip.blogspot.com
Podcast Ping: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing
Ken from Chicago
> Fat, lazy, dull 'Saturday Night Live' endures
> Tim Goodman
>
> Here's a strange, enduring television mystery: Why nobody is trying to
> kill off "Saturday Night Live." Or maybe it's equally strange that
> somebody tried but nobody noticed.
>
>
>
> Yes, Fox's "Mad TV" - which began in 1995 and isn't supposed to end
> its 14-season run until May - put up a sporadically memorable fight
> in the effort to unseat "Saturday Night Live," but the brutal truth
> is that more people will be shocked to hear that "Mad TV" is still
> on the air than have actually seen the sketch series. You can't kill
> an institution by being invisible.
<snip>
MAD TV mimicked SNL shortened the timeline from rise to fall--in being
hilarious with its first "generation" of stars, notable, Orlando Jones,
Nicole Sullivan, Phil LaMarr, Bryan Callen. After they left the show
went downhill, relying more and more on stock (unfunny) characters,
instead of celebrity / political impersonations (which both they and SNL
were consistantly funnier at and yet which bafflingly they seem to
resist doing), and doing longer skits that didn't seem to know when to
end.
Oh wait, I guess now they have learned when to end.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Meanwhile the anti-MADTV/SNL in terms of short skits, and loads of
impersonations is ROBOT CHICKEN.
Barry Margolin
"Patrick McNamara" <writer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For the longest time the SNL comics were using the show to bide their time
> before getting into movies, and they still are. They don't care about the
> show and neither do I. I haven't bothered with SNL in a long time and even
> try to avoid the specials the appear.
That's one of the things that probably makes the show so cheap.
Whenever there's a break-out star, they don't stay on the show and
demand more money, they go off to do movies or their own TV show.
There's a bottomless pit of new comics waiting in the wings to take
their place at rock-bottom prices.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
I think this might be called "SNL Derrangement Syndrome" . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Felicity
something better.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<ad433308-26d1-48a3...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Felicity <felici...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's no point in trying to kill it until it can be replaced with
> something better.
Monster movies from the '50s. Reruns of Run, Buddy, Run and Jon Gnagy
Learn-to-Draw. That test pattern with the Indian head on it.
Take your pick.
Unique
> There's no point in trying to kill it until it can be replaced with
> something better.
The talent is decent. They just need some better writers.
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Amerika,
Space, Lon Chaney, George Washington 1 & 2,
Rich Man Poor Man 1 & 2, Beatles Music Videos,
and many more...
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<akjs...@akjsfdsa.biz> wrote:
> Felicity wrote:
> > There's no point in trying to kill it until it can be replaced with
> > something better.
>
> The talent is decent. They just need some better writers.
I disagree with the first half. The talent isn't very good; some cast
members are adequate, but there seems to be nothing really special
about any of them. Worse, most (if not all) of the cast has come to
rely on cue cards so much that few if any of them bother to memorize
their dialogue. Their eyes and attention are all over the place during
a sketch. They're not performing, they're reading. It's distracting
and amateurish.
I say start over. Get a new producer. Recast everybody. Cut the show
to an hour. Produce it somewhere besides New York and Los Angeles.
(Maybe Chicago.) Pre-record it, since going live makes no difference
at all. And let's see some stand-up from comedians we don't already
know.