Dammit SNL, what happened?

God, shottie, that's a horrible thought.
Also the kitties are vulernable to a spin move to their outside shoulder.
Just sayin'.

 

I don't think there is really much hope there.
First of all, how many truly funny, YOUNG, comedy writers have you even heard of right now? And if there are any, SNL's not just competing with Conan or his ilk now, there's Colbert and Jon Stewart. There have been very few good sitcoms on the air in the last decade. There's just not the quality out there.

Let's face it, the golden age of SNL coincided with the golden age of sitcoms, where it seemed there were a whole bunch of genuinely intelligent, genuinely funny (and mostly Jewish, it seemed) people generating great material on a weekly basis.

MASH, Barney Miller, All in the Family, etc., etc.

That's not there now. And the comedians who can write all want their own shows.

My impression has always been that SNL is pretty much on the bottom of that pay scale, perhaps promoted as an opportunity, a stepping stone to go on to greater things. So they're hardly going to attract the greatest talent, either. Nor is experience even going to help; there aren't exactly that many opportunities out there to perfect your television sketch comedy-writing craft.

If they were on cable, and therefore not restricted in language or content, they could be a lot more daring and then, maybe, they might find new inspiration.


Then again, the brief period when SNL brought in established people wasn't so great either, although the Billy Crystal era had its moments.

It's probably still on because it's cheap to produce. But I'd cut the cord.

 

Ballscribe--

I wouldn't necessarily give up home for the reasons you mentioned. Even in SNL's heyday, most of the writers were unknowns. No one knew who Conan was when he wrote for SNL. Jim Downey is the best political writer SNL ever had and I bet he gets recognized as the "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard" principal in Billy Madison much more often than someone tells him they enjoyed the GOP debate sketch in 88. I think SNL still has cache for comedy writing, probably because it is the most difficult to do. It's one thing to give Stewart a pithy one-liner for a monologue, it's another to build an entire sketch. I think that for writers, SNL is probably a good stepping stone to doing movies since you would be working closely with SNL stars who will be doing movies in the not too distant future.

SNL has also had four distinct "golden" periods: the original NRFPT players, Eddie Murphy, the Hartman/Carvey/Lovitz era and the Will Ferrell circa 1999-2002 era. Those eras don't necessarily match up with the great sitcoms.

Here is the reason I have lost some hope: Lorne Michaels had the perfect opportunity to revamp the show in the "off-season." He could have brought in a new head writer from the outside and cleaned even greater house with the cast. When a cast wasn't working out, Lorne would usually completely clean house and start anew (like when everyone but Lovitz got the boot or when Farley/Spade/Sandler were pushed out and the Ferrell/Kattan/Shannon group was brought in). This cast has some good invividual talent, but has never seemed to mesh. Instead of sucking it up, cutting everyone loose and starting from scratch, Michaels shuffled a few deck chairs and hoped for the best.

 

Good points, oh Papal one.
The only one I would disagree with is your description of the golden era(s).
To me (and I'm not that old), there was only one, the early years. In large part because what they were doing was so groundbreaking.

The other eras you mentioned, I'd qualify as silver.

I was pretty young when those early shows aired, but I still stayed up.
Later on, I can't remember really needing to be home for SNL, or even taping it. If I caught it, I caught it. If not, so what.

I have to think that Michaels has either no clue what's funny in the 21st century, or has no clue what's funny anymore, period.
I mean, can't he tell when his writers are pitching their skits every Monday, that they're awful?

Doesn't he have enough contacts out there to put out feelers that if anyone can write a funny skit for SNL, it'll certainly be considered and might lead to something? Even if that person is a "nobody?"

Shouldn't his foremost concern be to find shit that is funny? I mean, even the first episode of the season was a dud, at least the parts I watched. Why is that suddenly so impossible for him to do? It's astonishing, and I truly believe it is a reflection of what is (or isn't) out there in the talent pool.

 

They're aware of the outside shoulder. It's a trap. They will execute a forearm shiver on anyone who tries that route.

 

This is one way I've gauged the current (and recent SNL): Back in the Clarence Thomas hearing days, there was a "buzz" as to how SNL would handle it come Saturday. I'm not sure if this was one of the "golden years" or not, but there was still the sense that SNL was the pulse of satire on current events.

Only because of work (put it on in the background) do I see SNL now, but this past week with the Foley opening sketch ... eh, just didn't do it, wasn't very funny or cutting edge or whatever.

Hate to see the show get axed anytime soon ... as it being on is still a link to younger days. Sad enough the "real" MNF is gone.

 

It's not getting axed anytime soon ... for the same reason this thread is about to reach three pages in length. It's bigger than itself by now.

 

This show just gets worse and worse every year.

They might as well cancel it and start airing bowling, darts, dominos or poker in its place. I find any of those more entertaining to watch over the last five years!