Mick Jagger to Host Season Finale of 'SNL': Good Pick or Get Out?
The Big Question
2012/05/04 00:59:13
|
|
|||||
|
74 votes
|
|
65% | |||
|
40 votes
|
|
35% | |||
SNL has been (on and off) one of the most successful, fan-favourite, critical favourites, highly regarded by some (maybe MOST) of the greatest comedians of the last 3 decades.
They really don't even need star-power in most of those seasons. in strong seasons they could have no recognizable guest hosts or bands. And still smash all rating records. (give or take what seasons were better or worse).
You're confusing ratings with talent.
Up til about '79, when they had the Not-Ready-For-Primetime-Players and writers from the old Nat'l Lampoon, they were a good, ensemble cast... something special. Since then, they've just been a half-assed traditional sketch show, with tiresome "stars" like Kevin Nealon, Will Ferrell, Dana Carvey and that chick who does Sarah Palin impressions.
Even their band fell apart after Howard Shore left in the early 80's.
I don't think it's a coincidence that every time (maybe 12, total) that I've tuned in since then, it happened to be so awkwardly UN-funny that it was uncomfortable to watch.
They have definitely NOT needed star-power (depending on high or lows).
I don't know why you think its 'expertise' to simply describe Kevin Nealon, Will Ferrell and Dana Carvey as 'tiresome' and "stars". All three of them are highly regarded by the very best in the comedy world. Considered among the funniest of the funny.
To see that:
Will Ferrell's 'Funny or Die' website will easily gather the most highly regarded comedians across the board and world.
Yes, I agree YOU lost interest after season 3 but you would have to agree you are an exception. Lorne Michaels doesn't even agree the first seasons were anywhere near their best. He cites the 90s as the real 'Golden Era'.
*Interestingly, you have to REALLY SEARCH HARD to find full episodes of the first 3 seasons online (or anywhere) and there is a good reason:
Find a full episode. Not just selected highlights. A full episode. Most people would be SHOCKED at how BAD those could be. Shockingly bad.
*What I DO love about the first se...
They have definitely NOT needed star-power (depending on high or lows).
I don't know why you think its 'expertise' to simply describe Kevin Nealon, Will Ferrell and Dana Carvey as 'tiresome' and "stars". All three of them are highly regarded by the very best in the comedy world. Considered among the funniest of the funny.
To see that:
Will Ferrell's 'Funny or Die' website will easily gather the most highly regarded comedians across the board and world.
Yes, I agree YOU lost interest after season 3 but you would have to agree you are an exception. Lorne Michaels doesn't even agree the first seasons were anywhere near their best. He cites the 90s as the real 'Golden Era'.
*Interestingly, you have to REALLY SEARCH HARD to find full episodes of the first 3 seasons online (or anywhere) and there is a good reason:
Find a full episode. Not just selected highlights. A full episode. Most people would be SHOCKED at how BAD those could be. Shockingly bad.
*What I DO love about the first seasons - yes, they did have a cool, hip and truly 'live' feeling that we won't see again. They were real 'happenings' and live meant live and you never knew what crazy thing would happen!
(and while I'm no expert I really have met and even written with a few SNL people and we have wondered a lot about you guys who say this thing).
Mick Jagger might draw an audience, and this is the only reason the show has ever existed in the first place. Apparently, its continued success is due to a lack of competition or a loyal following of weekend boozers who laugh at anything.
And try to see past the pic I posted. It's all a bit of fun... nobody actually believes that it indicates expertise. You, on the other hand, betray your total lack of expertise in your reliance on ratings and marketing blurbs to form your opinions for you.
They don't need Mick Jagger to draw a huge audience. SNL does really well.
You wrote: "You, on the other hand, betray your total lack of expertise in your reliance on ratings and marketing blurbs"
But I did not do that. You actually confused ratings and comedy and you did that when you wrote your original comments:
"They haven't been funny since the third season... I reckon they could use all the star power they can muster."
I did two separate things with you. I separated and corrected the two:
- On the idea of ratings - SNL has huge ratings and has had massive ratings past season 3.
- On the idea of comedy: SNL has been critically-acclaimed, attracts the best writers, is regarded as having its golden age AFTER season 3 by Lorne Michaels but has also launched some of the best comics.
No marketing blurbs have been used.
So what do you say to that now?
Where's your Canadian god, now?
But since you disagree with most of the critics and best in comedy about what is funny...
..What have you declared to be funny and successful? If not any of the 30+ seasons of SNL?
I like Black Books, Peep Show, Mitchell & Webb, Corner Gas, Armstrong and Miller, Love Soup, Smack the Pony, Blackadder, Jeeves, QI and many others. They don't win Emmies, though, so you probably won't be familiar with them. It's a shame-- they're actuallly good.
But what I did do is let you know it's highly respected by writers and the best comedians out there.
Blackadder, Jeeves and Wooster, Smack the Pony (and others you mentioned) are all winners of all kinds of awards and are critically-acclaimed.
And yes I'm familiar with them. I've even worked with some of the same people who have (in the past) worked on some of those shows.
Do you suppose Hugh Laurie and Brent Butt are HUGE SNL fans?
I'll just have to find out what Hugh and Brett think about SNL, so I'll know what to think about it, myself.
Thanks for putting this in a way that I can understand.
- When you heard 'SNL' you just remember that there is this thing you hear other people say:
"Uh.. it went downhill after Belushi left" or "It was great in the first few seasons but after that it was all downhill".
So you said it.
You said it because it was something you think smart people say. You remember it seemed like if you said that you were showing hip good taste in comedy.
And not because you really followed the next 30 seasons of SNL or even know what happened there.
I also suggest you named comedies that, in your mind, you think are what sophisticated comedy taste would say they watch.
I think you know I'm right about this. Yes. You do know this is about bang-on yes.
No... SNL lost its appeal in the early 80's. Maybe I just got a bellyful of those shows with "SCTV" and "Fridays" in competition (Melanie Chartoff *was* hot) but I'm pretty sure I missed Howard Shore, Gilda Radner and John Belushi enough that their second incarnation put me off pretty quickly.
If you'll excuse me now, I have to catch up on some prestige comedy.
Found an obscure Icelandic literary cabaret that simply excoriates modern fiction. JL Borges, tonight-- should be a hoot.
I'm hoping they'll go "NEEDS MORE COWBELL!" like that, because that's very, very funny. Or, so they say.
Yes, I'll go find a Victor Borge DVD for you. Tell your friends you are enjoying a red wine and a night with 'Borge & Borges' (say in a comedic scandinavian accent).