Saturday Night Live, season 36 - Page 2

The Black Noise bit was probably the funniest part of the whole show. I love it when they save something great for the end to make it worth watching.

Kanye put on a heck of a performance, too. Nicely done, Mr. West (and ladies).

Good chemistry and timing on the Father & Son sketch.

Also:

I switched away during that god awful Shanna sketch, came back what seemed like five minutes later and it was still going. Wiig was nails on a chalkboard in that thing.

Can I just say that it creeps me the fuck out that the still photo bumpers after commercials now move?

Only highlight for me: Abby Elliot as Mary Kay Latourneau.

How was Cranston? I'm betting awkward, but possibly still quite funny.

I don't think I have ever been able to sit through an entire SNL episode from start to finish. But I do remember the show used to save it's worst content for the later part of the show.

I only watched up until the Digital Short. Did the show do anything funny with Cranston? It seemed like he did nothing in those first sketches.

The new guy's Depp was perfect. Too bad it was totally wasted in this sketch. I think you need to have him acting opposite the actual guest host, not another new cast member. Or come up with a spoof of a Johnny Depp movie. The impression just wasn't put to good use. The question is, why was Cranston playing the second banana (as Billy Ray Cyrus) and not the person being interviewed by Miley Cyrus? That's usually how these things work out.

Why do I get the feeling that Freeman wasn't pretending to be perplexed by the whole thing? If I were Kenan I'd be embarrassed to be doing the skit in front of him.

Yes! I hate it.

Wasted for the most part. They barely used him for anything actually funny. Damn shame considering how funny he can be and how obviously comfortable he was on stage. I get this kind of treatment for, say, an athlete or someone similarly incapable with this kind of show,* but to relegate someone like Cranston to the periphery was just stupid.

As been mentioned time and again, the cast is capable, but they need a huge writer overhaul. Special kudos to Seth Meyers' Update for continually making the lamest, worst jokes with some pretty good setups.



*not that athletes can't be funny. Some have been.

Solid, and game. Couple jokes about his tighty-whitie appearances in Breaking Bad. Flubbed a bit at the beginning of the singing act with Armisen, but recovered. Good as a smarmy '70s game show host who kisses everyone, but the sketch was under-written. Nailed the final sketch with Pedrad.

Christ they need to fire all the writers. And Wiig. And Armisen. Good cast otherwise, gives me hope for the next season if they hold on to everyone and shake up the writing staff.

Kanye was good. Liked the Cyrus impression.

You know, I get kind of annoyed with commentary on how a show "wasted" someone. The show isn't set UP to waste someone - it's designed to let the guest host get involved with the process creatively. Hell, they NEED that, because pretty much everyone ever involved with the show says that the weekly grind is one of the most exhausting things you can ever do in show business. Someone who brings in fresh currency is like gold bullion when they're trying to break sketches.

Guests hosts SIT in the room with the writers and are invited to pitch stuff. They LOVE hosts like Baldwin, Hamm and Timberlake[*] because they get into the room, interact with the writers, and do actual creative work. And there are others, like Cranston (and he even alluded to this in the monologue), who are overwhelmed/overawed by the process, and the writers have NO idea what to do with them. So they get shoved in open slots, and they trot out all the warhorses with the day staff.

It doesn't mean that a lot, if not most, of the writing isn't shitty. But it also doesn't mean that they sit around thinking - hey! I wonder how we can waste an interesting actor this week.


* Baldwin, Hamm and Timberlake: my new favorite law firm.

Black Noise and What up With That were the highlights of the show. Sheree was good if only for Cranstons facial reactions.

And am I the only one worried that if the show bombs next week it will still be loved just because of Jane Lynch and Glee.

Why would that worry you?

I've been singing "I sent a bottle of sparkling apple juice to your house" for the last few days. It's nice to see SNL finally dabbling in undiluted anti-comedy.

I'm calling it now: Glee parody with Gilly.

I think Gilly's pretty dead. I don't think she's made an appearance since the disastrously Gilly-heavy SNL primetime special a year or so ago - maybe once since then.

I'm very aware that the greats (like those you mentioned, particularly Baldwin) really get into the process and make things work. But when you have a gifted comedic actor like Cranston spend most of his time on the show standing around, mildly reacting to things, then it is a waste, and a complete failure on the part of the writing staff.

Their entire job, alongside the cast, is to make this show funny. Now that's a hell of a tough job for anyone, but these people have been absolutely failing for quite some time now. Now I have no idea how involved Cranston was with the process this week, but I doubt he just sat around nixing ideas. So yeah, it is a waste of talent because with a better writing staff behind him, maybe it could have been something special.

The long and short of it is, I entirely get what you're saying and I probably could have chose my words better. But they just really, really need to fire all the writers and start fresh.

You'd think some kind of Breaking Bad sketch would be a no-brainer.

Kanye... Holy shit.

Because if the show is aweful(which is almost a given) I want to see it called out for being crap and not given a free pass because Glee is so universally loved. I mean I like Baldwin and 30 Rock but even when he hosts the shows are mostly crap.

We can only hope.

They didn't even do a riff on Malcom in the Middle. I would have expected either one.

That Miley Cyrus sketch featured one of the absolutely dead-on impersonations in the show's history. We let our five-year-old niece watch Hannah Montana on occasion, and the new girl was so spot-on, that I was literally laughing out loud over her delivery alone -- it was amazeballs.

The clip from the movie was parody at its finest. The highlight of the night for me.

There have been lots of gifted actors over the years - comedic and otherwise - who found themselves in the same place. And frankly, I think Cranston was terrified on some level - there was that giveaway line in the monologue ("I've never done a show like this before"), and only the fact that he's a consummate pro got him through the show.

Well, I don't see Cranston as having nixed anything - I just don't think he brought any interesting ideas to the table, and maybe he didn't realize that was something he could do.

(I don't know if you've read any of the SNL books, but one thing that the great hosts do is instantly gravitate to one of the writers or performers and form a partnership with them. That's what the regulars do, and the perceptive hosts grasp that immediately. For instance, Timberlake instantly paired off with Samberg. For Alec Baldwin, it was Bonnie and Terry Turner in the earlier days, and then Tina Fey.)

I appreciate that - but here's where the biggest misperception is, I think. The staff is fine - and they're particularly great when they go off into complete absurdist land. The problem is Lorne, or more specifically, his level of engagement. When he's interested, the batting average of the show goes straight up (though even in the glory days, you usually never got a show that was better than 50% success). The problem is, he's VERY seldom engaged. There's a reason that the Thursday SNL political specials during the election were triumphs, with the same writing staff that's produced virtually nothing but political duds on the saturday night edition. It's because he had something at stake for the prime-time versions, and personally shaped and stamped his imprimatur on those shows.

You can also see that in the first season when he came back to SNL, the Anthony Michael Hall/Robert Downey Jr/Damon Wayans season. He took a very hands-off approach - much like now - and the result was arguably the second worst season in the show's history. (And I mean, my God - RDJ? How could the show have not worked with him in the cast?) Same thing for the Chris Elliott-Janeane Garafalo season, where he had totally let himself be diverted by the cottage industry of SNL movies that were getting cranked out. The next seasons, he restructured the cast and got intimately involved again, and we wound up with some of the best and most imaginative writing the show had had in years.

The bottom line is that, without Lorne's engagement, the only reliable source of creative inspiration HAS to come from the guest hosts, which is why we're now guaranteed a Hamm or Baldwin appearance once a year. And in retrospect, it's not surprising that a Cranston episode is going to turn-out mezzo-mezzo. SNL needs a leader once a week, and he just wasn't it, talented as he is.

The leader should come from the show's regulars. I don't remember the hosts being that heavily leaned on in the show's various glory days. The original cast and writers used to love having Buck Henry host because he stayed out of their way and went along with anything they came up with. Now the host has to be the leader of this supposedly veteran team of sketch comedy professionals? Sorry, not buying it. The only reason they need a strong host now is because this current cast and group of writers can't carry the show to save their lives.

No, the leadership - as I clearly said - should come from Lorne. It's HIS show. And yes, it's true - that DIDN'T happen in the old days (Candace Bergen was also in the Buck Henry mold), though they always appreciated the writing chops of Steve Martin. But no, it didn't happen in the first four seasons because Lorne was PRESENT. (Take a look at the last season of Lorne's original run OTOH, when he was off producing Gilda's film and Belushi et al had left to make movies too). The same lazy writing is there. He IS the show you'd see today.

And you may not buy it, but enough of the show's writers have gone on the record repeatably about it to make me fairly certain that that's what's happening

Still, if your executive producer isn't stepping up, someone whose material is going out there every week should instead of just shrugging and saying, "Eh, Lorne's not trying."

(And sorry, misread your post and thought you were talking about hosts stepping up rather than Michaels.)

Unequivocally true. And sometimes you do get that with a Tina Fey, who sets their own stamp on the show and get Lorne's attention. But sometimes you wind up with a Jim Downey or a Seth Meyers, who define success not as a creative standard, but by keeping the ratings afloat and, by extension, Lorne happy.

Interestingly, I think the best balance they ever acheived was in the last Ebersol year, with that great Guest/Crystal/Shearer/Short cast driving everything.

Your argument basically absolves Meyers for sucking. The head writer on SNL should be someone brilliant, who is also incredibly driven. Meyers is clearly a student of comedy, I imagine he has a massive say in WU, where the jokes are traditionally structured and often pretty funny, but as a head sketch writer he sucks donkey balls. Lorne may have grown fat and lazy too, but sketches barely have any smart lines or jokes, and you can't say that Michaels is some kind of sieve, making sure nothing intelligent gets through.

Relying on an outside force to turn up for a week and 'lead' is an absurd notion. You want them to be involved and to put their own stamp on proceedings, but they should be led by the regular staff, whose goal should be to make the best possible show and best showcase the host. The host can then elevate the material through their performance and force of will, but the foundations have to be there.

Cranston's lack of anything to do reminded me a lot of Paul Rudd last year (or maybe the year before). You have two great comedic actors who seem incredibly likeable and have generally been game for anything in the past, and they were largely saddled with crap and straight man roles.

The writing just sucks plain and simple. From the couple of SNL books I've read it generally seems little groups come up with ideas and a draft before bringing it together and sketches being worked on around the table. Take the Miley Cyrus sketch, you had a couple of excellent impressions, but hardly any jokes, and none that were any good. It isn't really fair to compare to what was the best writing staff of all time, but if you imagine the Simpsons 2-4 group around a table rewriting that sketch, you would have joke after joke after joke, most of which would hit, using the impression as a starting point, not as the comedy focal point.

It doesn't absolve Meyers for sucking. It's Lorne's choice to have who he wants in there, and except for the big-get kind of episodes, he's as thrilled with Seth Meyers treading water as he was with Jim Downey treading water. The only time things change is when the suckage starts to impact the ratings. And it's not happening.

This is LORNE'S CALL and by all measures, he's just fine and dandy with the way Meyers is running things.

What's annoying, and it's been touched on a couple of times here by most involved, is that the Meyers-run staff can touch into some brilliance when they go for the weird, absurdist stuff. Sadly, these are the sketches that get pushed into the last ten minutes of the broadcast.

I'd say it's understandable, that the average viewer might not take to it, but a lot of the digital shorts play on the same brand of humor and they tend to go over well. But maybe that's the key. One digital short of weirdness can work, but too much and it's overkill.

I would kill for more absurdism and anti-comedy from the show. If that's what they excel at, I say let them bring it.

"The Kickspit Under Underground Rock Music Festival" and the "potato chip astronaut" and basically any of those bizarrely dark characters Will Forte did were the best things last season, but they were few and far between.

Actually, if the writing staff is good at weird, that kind of makes it make sense that the more traditional sketches seem plain and uninspired. They probably don't care enough to put any thought into them.

Bravo.

Yeah, this entire Glee sketch has been one obvious joke after another. The only thing that saved it was the half-hearted response to Gilly when she came out.

Jesus, I shudder to think what they thought wasn't good enough to air before midnight.

And this skit made me want to rip my eyes out of their sockets. How the heck is it possible this show can create such an unfunny skit involving a Glee parody? A Glee parody basically writes itself.

But once again we get another Gilly skit no one wanted to see. Kristin Wiig and her annoying characters need to fade into obscurity pronto.

I read this as Kristin Wiig's annoying character on the game show followed that Christine O'Donnell sketch that starred Kristin Wiig. Yeah...too much.

Denzel started great, but he couldn't stay "on" the whole skit.

I blame the writing. The last 3 minutes of the sketch repeated the first 3 minutes of the sketch. The first half excited me because, hey, here's a distinct new voice! Instead, the writing took the most generic route possible.

The sad thing about current SNL is that talent doesn't even matter, because the writing is just....so...terrible. "Two and a Half Men" has more comedic writing ambition.

Amy Poehler, Bryan Cranston, Jane Lynch-3 very talented host and 3 shit episodes. I can just imagine how they will mess up Emma Stone and John Hamm.

Well, they haven't messed up Jon Hamm yet IMHO (I still watch Hamm and Buble from time to time), but I have no idea what's going to happen with Emma Stone.

I hate being right.

And really, that was something he could have done in five minutes of stand-up.

Last night's show was the fucking anti-funny.

When was the last time the show had someone just do a standup routine? I remember Harry Anderson and Joel Hodgson getting memorable spots in the '80s.

In 86, they brought on Sam Kinison a lot.

I liked the Boyfriend show and the Denzel sketch. Everything else stunk.

Yeah, Boyfriend Show was solid, the Denzel sketch was a good impression without much of a hook behind the writing, the Witch commercial thing at least developed all the way through to the end. But my god! Will they please drop all the annoying Wiig characters? Hell if they'd just promise to never do Gilly again that'd do wonders for my respect for the writing staff.

Anybody remember when SNL went so far to avoid a one note character being beaten to death that they literally killed Buckwheat? And that was during the fucking Ebersol years! What happened to that show?

Eddie Murphy quit.

Emma Stone is up. Unfortunatly they had a behing the scenses look online and they are doing The View with Emma as Lohan.

That might have been the worst Digital Short ever.

I liked the dancing bit. Liked the Sex Ed guy but not the skit. Hoping for magic in the final 15.

Seemed like Weekend update was exta long.

Sex Ed Vincet's Sex Symposium might be the best sketch I've seen in the last five years. I almost find it hard to believe it was a SNL sketch - it seems like something from "Tim and Eric."

The new featured actors are really bringing some new life into the show.