SNL vs. Mad TV
Brian W. Smith
SNL and Mad TV are the two funniest shows on Saturday nights. Here are
some observations I have for liking/disliking them:
Humor Content:
Mad TV above all is consistent. The first sketch is just as likely
to be funny as the last. SNL seems to cram all the good sketches in the
first half-hour and the humor level decreases exponentially over time
after the Weekend Update. Granted, SNL is 1/2 hour longer, so they have
more time to fill per show.
Sketch Repetition:
Mad TV doesn't seem to repeat sketch ideas as much as SNL, which can
be good or bad. Mad TV does repeat some characters like the hyperactive
UBS delivery guy and Cabana Chat. However, every single SNL episode
I've seen this past month has Mary Katherine Gallagher, the
Cheerleaders, and the 'what is love?' disco men.
Cast:
In general equally funny. I do think that SNL puts 20% of the cast
in 80% of the funny skits, whereas Mad TV seems more balanced in cast
member usage.
Guests:
Mad TV sometimes has them, rarely uses them for more than a
monologue and a cameo in one skit. Most Mad TV shows are exclusively
for the cast. For SNL, guest selection can make or break a whole show.
In general, shows that are hosted by actors, comedians, and former cast
members are awesome. (Jim Carrey, Dana Carvey, Steve Martin) Shows that
are hosted by sports figures are the worst. (Charles Barkley, Nancy
Kerrigan)
Music:
SNL has it. Mad TV doesn't. It can clean one's pallette for the
comedy to come, but in general I think it's a waste of valuable laughing
time.
Political Material:
Both had a field day with the presidential elections last year. The
rules of political sketch writing are the same for both: Democrats are
flawed but good, Republicans are hypocritical and bad. Al Franken's
in-your-face liberalism is a frequent turn-off for me.
Offensive Material:
Mad TV's humor is frequently darker than SNL. While the humor in
both is geared to showing eccentric and dorky people in ordinary
situations, I can't remember the last time I was actually offended by an
SNL sketch. Mad TV frequently crosses the line with some of its
material. I found some Mad TV sketches disappointing because they were
overly sacreligious, unneccesarily violent, or excessively sexually
graphic.
Just my 4 cents. Agree? Disagree?
===========================================================
Brian Smith email: bws...@bme.unc.edu
Graduate Student UNC Biomedical Engineering
===========================================================
Jacob Huebert
In a previous article, bws...@bme.unc.edu ("Brian W. Smith") says:
>Sketch Repetition:
> Mad TV doesn't seem to repeat sketch ideas as much as SNL, which can
>be good or bad. Mad TV does repeat some characters like the hyperactive
>UBS delivery guy and Cabana Chat. However, every single SNL episode
>I've seen this past month has Mary Katherine Gallagher, the
>Cheerleaders, and the 'what is love?' disco men.
This Saturday's Roxbury Guys ("disco men") sketch was the first new
one in a while..
>Guests:
> Mad TV sometimes has them, rarely uses them for more than a
>monologue and a cameo in one skit. Most Mad TV shows are exclusively
>for the cast. For SNL, guest selection can make or break a whole show.
>In general, shows that are hosted by actors, comedians, and former cast
>members are awesome. (Jim Carrey, Dana Carvey, Steve Martin) Shows that
>are hosted by sports figures are the worst. (Charles Barkley, Nancy
>Kerrigan)
Yes, but it's been a long time since SNL had a *really* bad host.. I think..
>Music:
> SNL has it. Mad TV doesn't. It can clean one's pallette for the
>comedy to come, but in general I think it's a waste of valuable laughing
>time.
I agree, but it would be wrong to break the SNL music tradition at
this point. :)
>Political Material:
> Both had a field day with the presidential elections last year. The
>rules of political sketch writing are the same for both: Democrats are
>flawed but good, Republicans are hypocritical and bad. Al Franken's
>in-your-face liberalism is a frequent turn-off for me.
It's a good thing Al Franken hasn't had anything to do with SNL for
some time. :) I don't see SNL portraying Democrats or Republicans
as good or bad anymore. They just pick the things to make fun of in
members of each one and go after that, ignoring politics pretty much.
And I'd say they've been *very* nasty to some Democrats since Franken
left.. I'd also say it's about time. :)
--
Jacob Huebert
aa...@yfn.ysu.edu
Basem Y. Boshra
Brian W. Smith <bws...@bme.unc.edu> wrote in article
<3314D1...@bme.unc.edu>...
> Political Material:
> Both had a field day with the presidential elections last year. The
> rules of political sketch writing are the same for both: Democrats are
> flawed but good, Republicans are hypocritical and bad. Al Franken's
> in-your-face liberalism is a frequent turn-off for me.
>
>
Al Franken! When was the last time you watched SNL?
bradleys
Brian W. Smith wrote:
>
> However, every single SNL episode
> I've seen this past month has Mary Katherine Gallagher, the
> Cheerleaders, and the 'what is love?' disco men
That is not entirley true. I can't remember the last time Mary Katherine
Gallagher appeared prior to last Saturday's show. The cheerleaders have
appeared only once since Christmas of '96. The Roxbury Guys ("'what is
love' disco men"), prior to last Saturday's show, haven't appeared since
mid-December. And before that since September. And before that since
May. In fact, in the last two years they've only appeared 5 times.
Sean Bradley
Brian W. Smith
I stand corrected.
I admit that although I generally don't miss an SNL episode, I have only
seen a few in the past couple of months. The ones that I did see all
happened to have those skits, so I went with statistical odds and
assumed that they were on the ones I missed as well. Bad examples.
I still stand behind my point though, which is that SNL (at least during
the SNL Renaissance of late-80's, early 90's) is MORE LIKELY than Mad TV
to have a string of episodes with the same skit. This is neither good
nor bad, just an observation. (Hans & Franz, Wayne's World, Pat, George
Bush, Anal Retentive Guy)
--
Brian W. Smith
Again, I stand corrected for not checking the ending credits recently.
You must admit that Franken the writer has made lots of appearances
(Stewart Smalley) without ever having his name in the formal intros with
all the other cast members (occasionally in the co-starring intro beside
"musical guests"). I assumed he was still hanging around in the
background as a writer. I saw he got a grammy for the "Rush Limbaugh is
a Big Fat Idiot" on tape. Since that was fresh in my mind, it was the
first example I thought of.
I still am of the opinion that the writers of shows like SNL and Mad TV
(as well as the Dana Carvey Show R.I.P.) like the Democrats better than
the Republicans. This includes Letterman, Leno, and Conan. Admittedly,
I am a Republican and am not unbiased, but Clinton seems to have a whole
lot of actual substantive charges against him that SNL could be taking
advantage of and don't.
Mlsmal
Brian wrote this:
<snippet>
I still am of the opinion that the writers of shows like SNL and Mad TV
(as well as the Dana Carvey Show R.I.P.) like the Democrats better than
the Republicans. This includes Letterman, Leno, and Conan. Admittedly,
I am a Republican and am not unbiased, but Clinton seems to have a whole
lot of actual substantive charges against him that SNL could be taking
advantage of and don't.
This IMHO used to be the case from about 1980-1993/4, but I think that
things have gotten much more even now. The Republicans still aren't
popular, but they aren't the Satan Incarnate image that they were when SNL
did the sketch "The Liberal". However, the Demoncrats are certainly a very
large target right now. I think it's less that the entertainment industry
has gotten easier on Republicans than it's simply harder to make fun of
Republicans when they don't hold the Presidency, so they have to go for
Clinton in order to survive. Is nothing in Hollywood sacred??
Regards,
Lee
(remember that the two most negative movies about the Presidency -- the
forthcoming Primary Colors and the *excellent* Absolute Power are
basically about Clintonesque Presidents and are coming while Clinton is in
office).
Joseph Nebus
"Brian W. Smith" <bws...@bme.unc.edu> writes:
>the Republicans. This includes Letterman, Leno, and Conan. Admittedly,
>I am a Republican and am not unbiased, but Clinton seems to have a whole
>lot of actual substantive charges against him that SNL could be taking
>advantage of and don't.
Something to keep in mind is...well...it's agonizingly hard to
come up with a good parody of Clinton. It seems like it ought to be
pretty easy--there's definitely enough to work with there--but it's
startlingly hard to put it in a way that gets at some truth and manages
to be entertaining. Late Night with Conan O'Brien, in my opinion, has
the best Clinton spoof, but they do it basically by ignoring everything
about Clinton and making a silly, hyperactive kid out of him. The only
Clinton sketch SNL has done that's worked for me was about two years ago,
with Clinton sitting up in the White House kitchen all night, depressed
and eating everything and calling up people, begging for someone to like
him...
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Vanderfluit
bradleys (brad...@itw.com) wrote:
: > However, every single SNL episode
: > I've seen this past month has Mary Katherine Gallagher, the
: > Cheerleaders, and the 'what is love?' disco men
:
: That is not entirley true. I can't remember the last time Mary Katherine
: Gallagher appeared prior to last Saturday's show. The cheerleaders have
: appeared only once since Christmas of '96. The Roxbury Guys ("'what is
: love' disco men"), prior to last Saturday's show, haven't appeared since
: mid-December. And before that since September. And before that since
: May. In fact, in the last two years they've only appeared 5 times.
I think it's more to the point that SNL relies too heavily on beating a
one time funny sketch to death. So what, The Roxbury guys have been on
only 5 times. It feels like a thousand. Enough already. The writers
must be able to come up with something original more often. Or is that
why they need musical guests - they can't write 90 minutes worth of new
stuff?
As for MAD - TV, it was refreshing how little it relied upon recurring
characters. However, if they're not careful they could fall into the same
trap as SNL. Cabana Chat has been on one too many times, for one.
Sean
****
If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?
****
Matthew B. Tepper
The best thing MAD TV has over SNL, in my arrogant opinion, is Nicole
Sullivan. She even had a guest shot on "Drew Carey" this week. Slurp,
drool!
--
"I don't care about being politically correct. I just want to be
anatomically correct!" http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
Matthew B. Tepper Web Brainiac and Gonzo Musicologist Quack!
Mlsmal
Sean wrote the snipped stuff:
<snip>
I think it's more to the point that SNL relies too heavily on beating a
one time funny sketch to death. So what, The Roxbury guys have been on
only 5 times. It feels like a thousand. Enough already. The writers
must be able to come up with something original more often. Or is that
why they need musical guests - they can't write 90 minutes worth of new
stuff?
Remember that when you take into account Saturday TV Funhouse and the
musical guest, the SNL folks write as much material as the MAD TV people.
Yeah, the fact that anything has run 5 times over what is about one season
(Phil Hartman last season to Alec this season) is just sick. However, I
think the biggest problem with the show is Cheri syndrome -- she's
everywhere and she just isn't funny any more IMHO. Maybe the next new
episodes will find us with less Cheri (and much much more Hammond) and
fresh sketches...
<snip>
As for MAD - TV, it was refreshing how little it relied upon recurring
characters. However, if they're not careful they could fall into the same
trap as SNL. Cabana Chat has been on one too many times, for one.
<snip>
This comes from the temptation of success. Cabana Chat was funny and was
funny more than once, so they knew that they could have a pretty funny
show. Let's hope that they understand what happens when SNL over-repeats
and see that the same can happen to them...
DAN FIORELLA
BWS=>From: "Brian W. Smith" <bws...@bme.unc.edu>
BWS=>Subject: SNL vs. Mad TV
BWS=>SNL and Mad TV are the two funniest shows on Saturday nights. Here are
BWS=>some observations I have for liking/disliking them:
BWS=>Sketch Repetition:
BWS=> Mad TV doesn't seem to repeat sketch ideas as much as SNL, which can
BWS=>be good or bad. Mad TV does repeat some characters like the hyperactive
BWS=>UBS delivery guy and Cabana Chat. However, every single SNL episode
BWS=>I've seen this past month has Mary Katherine Gallagher, the
BWS=>Cheerleaders, and the 'what is love?' disco men.
Not really, it's just with all the repeats and "best of the season"
shows, it seems they're on every week.
BWS=>Just my 4 cents. Agree? Disagree?
I think you nailed it.
---
þ SLMR 2.1a þ I support W*A*I*G -- Writers Against Improv Groups
þ
Al Bell
"Brian W. Smith" <bws...@bme.unc.edu> writes:
>Humor Content:
> Mad TV above all is consistent. The first sketch is just as likely
>to be funny as the last. SNL seems to cram all the good sketches in the
>first half-hour and the humor level decreases exponentially over time
>after the Weekend Update. Granted, SNL is 1/2 hour longer, so they have
>more time to fill per show.
But sometimes the very best weird SNL sketches come on toward the end.
--
Al Bell's Bell Jar - http://users.vnet.net/allbell/belljar.html *
"I'm just crazy about it." - Sylvia Plath
Featuring: "Terror at 30 Rock (or: The Peacock Had Fangs)"
all...@vnet.net *NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESS
Ruwan Jayatilleke
On 28 Feb 1997, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> The best thing MAD TV has over SNL, in my arrogant opinion, is Nicole
> Sullivan. She even had a guest shot on "Drew Carey" this week. Slurp,
> drool!
>
Yeah Nicole is good looking but, I can never tell if she is thin or fat.
Sometimes she looks really hot and cut and other times she looks likes she
binged at KFC. She is cute but, on top of that the Lancome Lady skit kix
ass. I think Mark McKinney should defect to Mad TV. Now that would be
weird wild stuff.
The burning question to me is whether Nicole is married or
boyfriended and why is Neve Campbell married...what is she some kind of
slut. *cackle*
---ruwan---
snl...@aol.com
What do you think? Do think SNL and other shows have made more fun of Clinton or Dole. In my oppinion I think that they take Clintos side more often than Dole. I have to admit some of there take-offs os Mtv's Realworld with Bob Dole were pretty funny. Thats my oppinion but whats yours? I would like to know. Post your response for "IS SNL DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN?"
VOICE YOUR RESPONSE!!!!!!
OR E-MAIL ME AT SNL...@AOL.COM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gordon Delamarter Bell
MacLab User
SNLGUY1 wrote:
Gordon, my friend, your intricately designed poll lacks one
crucial element. TIMING! Are you some sort of weird time
traveller from November of 1996?
Ryan
Sean Vanderfluit
Ruwan Jayatilleke (rjay...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU) wrote:
[snip]
: why is Neve Campbell married...what is she some kind of slut. *cackle*
:
: ---ruwan---
What kind of mental comment is that? Since when is marriage _slutty_?
Sean
Sean Vanderfluit
snl...@aol.com wrote:
: What do you think? Do think SNL and other shows have made more fun of
: Clinton or Dole. In my oppinion I think that they take Clintos side more
: often than Dole. I have to admit some of there take-offs os Mtv's
: Realworld with Bob Dole were pretty funny. Thats my oppinion but whats
: yours? I would like to know. Post your response for "IS SNL DEMOCRATIC
: OR REPUBLICAN?"
Considering the large number of Canadians who are on SNL (heck, even
Lorne Michaels is Canadian, even if he has "gone native" as a New Yorker),
maybe the correct question is whether they are Tory or Grit.
Hell, more importantly, Habs or Leafs?
Sean
Matthew B. Tepper
In article <19970306122...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
snl...@aol.com claims...
>
>What do you think? Do think SNL and other shows have made more fun of
>Clinton or Dole. In my oppinion I think that they take Clintos side
>more often than Dole. I have to admit some of there take-offs os Mtv's
>Realworld with Bob Dole were pretty funny. Thats my oppinion but whats
>yours? I would like to know. Post your response for "IS SNL DEMOCRATIC
>OR REPUBLICAN?"
>OR E-MAIL ME AT
SNL...@AOL.COM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Gordon Delamarter Bell
In my opinion, they take shots at both sides, but tend to do more with
whatever side is in office (or at least in the news) at the moment.
Ruwan Jayatilleke
On 6 Mar 1997, Sean Vanderfluit wrote:
> What kind of mental comment is that? Since when is marriage _slutty_?
>
> Sean
No one said marriage was sluttly...however your mom now that is a
different story. I would have had sex with her, but the dog beat me over
the fence. <====These are "mental comments." ;)
-ruwan-
TSERVO1155
snl rules, madtv sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bradleys
> snl rules, madtv sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That sums it up nicely in a juvenile kind of way.
Sean Bradley
Chris Matthews
bradleys <brad...@itw.com> wrote:
>> snl rules, madtv sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Sean Bradley
SNL Kicks Mad TV's ass!
Ruwan Jayatilleke
On 21 Mar 1997, TSERVO1155 wrote:
> snl rules, madtv sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and so does your mom, cornholio. :)
>
>