OT: SNL's New Season Begins
-
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 08:55 AM)
Interesting to me: sometimes SNL scores by bringing back former "funny cast members" and doing former "funny routines." I wonder who will come back this time?
Kristen Wiig. In a couple of weeks.
I feel like I called it this time. Methinks that whenever Lorne Michaels feels that his new sketches and players aren't cutting it, its time to bring back a veteran with his/her reliable old sketches.
Funny thing about Wiig, though. A few years ago, she was the Big Cheese on SNL and headed for movies, but now she is outshined by Kate MacKinnon..both on SNL and in a big movie together(Ghostbusters.)
That's show biz. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 09:19 PM)
Funny thing about Wiig, though. A few years ago, she was the Big Cheese on SNL and headed for movies, but now she is outshined by Kate MacKinnon..both on SNL and in a big movie together(Ghostbusters.)
HmmOne thing that can never be taken awayn from Wiig is that she starred in and co-wrote Bridesmaids, which made a ton of money (the biggest comedy for an SNL alum since Austin Powers - which reminds me, what the hell has happened to Mike Myers' career?) and lots of people think it's the most significant comedy of the millennium - opening up comedy for women in a way that hadn't been achieved before.
We'll see on MacKinnon. Her Ghostbusters schtick did nothing for me (Leslie Jones and McCarthy were my MVPs)
I wonder who's going to do President Trump? They'll need a regular. Surely Alec Baldwin won't commit for whole seasons? -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 12, 2016 07:51 AM)
HmmOne thing that can never be taken awayn from Wiig is that she starred in and co-wrote Bridesmaids, which made a ton of money (the biggest comedy for an SNL alum since Austin Powers
I did not KNOW that. Though I will note in passing that Melissa McCarthy made her name in that one, too; I remember seeing it and thinking "Well, whaddya know, they came up with a female Bluto."- which reminds me, what the hell has happened to Mike Myers' career?)
He certainly had the superstar thing going for awhile. Two franchises Wayne's World(from SNL, but actually funny) and Austin Powers but evidently he had a bit of a mental breakdown, lost his marriage, and dropped out.
And yet, there he was, oddly "straight" as a British character in "Inglorious Basterds"(acting with Rod Taylor as Chuchill yet), and he did a great new "Wayne's World" sketch on the 40th Anniversay SNL special.
Here's hoping he gets his mind straight and comes back. We need Austin Powers to go back to the 80's!
and lots of people think it's the most significant comedy of the millennium - opening up comedy for women in a way that hadn't been achieved before.
Well, OKI remember all the buzz, and I've seen the picture and it made me laugh.
But Wiig didn't really ride the wave from it.
I recall seeing her in a perfectly straight small role in "The Martian" and thinking: "THIS is gonna be her career?"
We will see.
Same with MacKinnon, too. Ghostbusters flopped and now Kate doesn't have her Hillary gig for much longer.
We'll see on MacKinnon. Her Ghostbusters schtick did nothing for me (Leslie Jones and McCarthy were my MVPs)
Umm..well, I liked her. It was the movie I hated.
I wonder who's going to do President Trump? They'll need a regular. Surely Alec Baldwin won't commit for whole seasons?
I think I read somewhere that he committed to do Trump for one full season "just in case".
Should Baldwin drop out, they have former cast member Darrell Hammond(who did a great, boorish Trump in the 00's) on board. He took over Trump from Tarem Killian last seasoneverybody knew "Darrell was the best one" so they brought Darrell back in and dumped Killian. Darrell's also better, IMHO, at Trump than Baldwin. But Darrell Hammond has indicated a need to escape SNL except for one thinghe's been the announcer's voice at the beginning ever since Don Pardo died.
- which reminds me, what the hell has happened to Mike Myers' career?)
-
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 13, 2016 08:05 AM)
Hallelujah indeed, this was an all killer no filler episode - easily the best since The Rock last season. Chappelle was great throughout but his opening monologue was one of the show's best ever. Tribe called Quest slayed with both their numbers and overall this felt like the 'blackest' SNL ep. ever. Skeptics might say they turned SNL into The Chappelle Show (he's back baby and will be able to write his own ticket for a series on the network of his choice after this), which they won't be able to reproduce.but that's a problem for another day. For this night, however, SNL felt urgent, whip-smart, cutting-edge, down-and-dirty, and funny-as-hell. 10/10.
-
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 10:02 PM)
Hallelujah indeed, this was an all killer no filler episode - easily the best since The Rock last season. 10/10.
Well, we are on the Psycho board, "home of the twist ending." I felt you had about given up on SNL swanstep. 10/10? Wow.
And they've got Kristen Wiig coming next week with some funny old characters in tow(well, I never thought a lot of her characters were funny, but many did.)
Chappelle was great throughout but his opening monologue was one of the show's best ever.
They've given their ace stand-ups(Louis K comes to mind, Chapelle this time) "extra time" to really roll with their monologues its not the hard duty with a musical number that most "actor only" hosts have to endure.
Some years ago, Mr. Chapelle famously hit big and dropped out; I don't know the full story. But he seems to be back and ready to go. At the sign-off at the end, he spoke of a comeback soI guess he's ready.
Tribe called Quest slayed with both their numbers and overall this felt like the 'blackest' SNL ep. ever.
I recall that it was only two seasons ago that SNL debuted with about 6 new white guys. Complaints were issued. They hired one black female who is still on the show but barely used now that they've had a break-out star in Leslie Jones. But meanwhilethey have the African-American thing well covered from time to time. As with this episode. And Chris Rock was this week's "returnee guest star." Fitting.
Using Chapelle and Rock to "comment" on the disillusioned white people watching the election returns "put some things in context." I thought the references to Slate and Huffington Post made a point..those internet mags tended to make so much fun of Trump for so longand then so pushed an "inevitable Hillary" at the end, that maybe, just maybe, they hurt her chances and raised his. There's never any clear reason why any of this happens. Election Day is it own special thing. But the tone of inevitability sure seems to have backfired. And I knowpopular vote went her way, big. But as long as the Electoral College exists, these things will happen.
Skeptics might say they turned SNL into The Chappelle Show (he's back baby and will be able to write his own ticket for a series on the network of his choice after this), which they won't be able to reproduce.but that's a problem for another day.
All those characters in the Walking Dead sketch which put this episode into the stratosphere for "honoring what's hot."
For this night, however, SNL felt urgent, whip-smart, cutting-edge, down-and-dirty, and funny-as-hell.
Well, a naturally funny host who pretty much writes his own lines helps. And SNL HAS positioned itself as the "go to" network show for Presidential politics.
Nowwho is gonna play Trump? He was notably absent from this episode -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 05:34 PM)
Nowwho is gonna play Trump? He was notably absent from this episode
Reportedly Baldwin is back as Trump this weekend. (That can't be the permanent solution, but I wouldn't mind betting that Baldwin will continue to do the odd special episode.) -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 08:33 PM)
I haven't watched my taped version yet, but yeahBaldwin came back. Insultingly about Trump, from what I've read.
Trump tweeted insults at SNL: "The show is unfunny and biased."
Baldwin tweeted insults back at Trump.
Welcome to 21st Century politics.
I see some irony here: many modern critics(and occasionally you, swanstep, and occasionally me) DO see the modern incarnation of SNL as "unfunny" and not on par with its illustrious past.
But now that it is a "political football" watch SNL get extolled from coast to coast as a great comedy program under unfair fire from a thin-skinned President-elect.
My inclination is to "close down my political blog," but it seems to me that we are about to enter a new incarnation of an old era: the political scene as a never-ending fight to the death. We've been here before. Nixon. Bill Clinton. And yes, recently, Obama. It never ends. It is what it is. But with Twitter, it can be all nasty, all the time.
Even as most people simply go about their lives. Half of America didn't vote in this election.
When I see this week's SNL, I'll try to say something. But I dunnoI feel like its been hijacked by the ugliness of our times. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 10:19 PM)
Even as most people simply go about their lives. Half of America didn't vote in this election.
It's anomalous how few people vote in the US. Every other advanced democracy has much higher voter participation rates.
There were a few good gags on SNL this week: mostly the pre-taped inserts on 'Life In The Bubble' (which could be understood as an anti-anti-Trump gag) and a fake Target ad offering itself as a respite from family on Thanksgiving. (As I've mentioned before, post-Election Thanksgivings in the US blew my mind: it's like the whole country gets to live through the same, but personalized for them SNL skit/ep. from Seinfeld.)
Kristen Wiig looked like she was auditioning for her SNL job back. She was good bouncing off MacKinnon in Cats R We, and looming as a crazy Macy's Parade balloon, and as panel member in a CNN/Anderson 360 bit (which could again be understood as an anti-anti-Trump bit).
None of the Trump stuff in the cold open or in Update, however, was particularly funny or good. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 05:47 AM)
It's anomalous how few people vote in the US. Every other advanced democracy has much higher voter participation rates.
I can only guess, I would assume there is some research somewhere.
Perhaps the size and population within a "free society" where people aren't forced to do anything political simply allows millions to opt out. The "only two candidates" finale can leave you with two that a lot of people simply didn't want(Trump and Clinton in this case; both had huge cases made against them) and so they don't vote.
But that "two candidates only" finale also gives us what's happening now: the sudden sainthood of the loser IN losing; SNL spent two years portraying Hillary Clinton as a heartless ambition-robot and turned her into a thwarted saint with that "Hallelujah" number.
I'm a bit amused by some screeds against those who didn't vote "You cannot join the dialogue on what is about to happen." As if it was one's civic duty to pick between two awful choices and thus endorse one of them. In America, you have the right to take a hike on the whole thing. You don't have to join the dialogue.
There were a few good gags on SNL this week: mostly the pre-taped inserts on 'Life In The Bubble' (which could be understood as an anti-anti-Trump gag)
I haven't seen the show yet, but I've been reading "post mortems" and that bit certainly seems to show a satirical even-handedness on SNL's part.
and a fake Target ad offering itself as a respite from family on Thanksgiving. (As I've mentioned before, post-Election Thanksgivings in the US blew my mind: it's like the whole country gets to live through the same, but personalized for them SNL skit/ep. from Seinfeld.)
Hah. I've generally had OK holidays like that in my life; folks lived so far away from each other that just seeing family overtook politics and family feuds. I guess I was lucky.Kristen Wiig looked like she was auditioning for her SNL job back.
I think two or three of them did come back over the years, as permanent cast members again. I guess she could if somebody really wanted the deal to be made.
Wiig may be running into the Dan Ackroyd problem: much funnier with a much greater range of characters to play on the TV series; rather diluted and hard to make an impression in movies. I'll exclude "Bridesmaids" from this analysis, but as for some directors and male stars, sometimes that one big hit can't keep the rest of your career going.
She was good bouncing off MacKinnon in Cats R We, and looming as a crazy Macy's Parade balloon, and as panel member in a CNN/Anderson 360 bit (which could again be understood as an anti-anti-Trump bit).
None of the Trump stuff in the cold open or in Update, however, was particularly funny or good.
Some of this sounds funny, some not. Sounds like good ol' SNL to me.
Also, it occurs to me: Trump did win(in the Electoral College, where it counts, if not in the popular vote, which will feed rage for decades, which is the American Way.) Perhaps SNL feels like making sure that the opposition is properly mocked, too. No favoritism; even-steven. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 04:15 PM)
Also, it occurs to me: Trump did win(in the Electoral College, where it counts, if not in the popular vote, which will feed rage for decades, which is the American Way.)
Hillary's popular vote lead is up to 1.7 million now (more than triple the edge Gore had over Bush).
When you do the math it turns out that (even without expanding the number of candidates), in principle, the electoral college system could give the presidency to someone who only won about 22% of the vote (i.e., if a candidate won in a squeaker in the minimum number of states for an EC victory, and got literally no votes elsewhere. (If there were 3+ competitive candidates in the 'squeaker states' then there's no limit to how low the popular vote share could go with which someone could win the Presidency.)
Moreover, the electoral college system gives the presidency to whoever gets a majority in the EC (not just whoever gets the most EC votes). But we could easily imagine a future there where three or more candidates get significant numbers of votes in the EC, where nobody ever gets a majority there. In that case every presidential election would get decided by the House of Reps (forming a special 50 member sub-house), and that House could decide to not to elect a candidate who got the most popular votes and had the most votes in the EC. Something like that could happen every time in future.
And if the future (not implausibly) also had 3+ parties with large numbers of reps in the House then the selection of the sub-House would become very difficult, and in any case a majority (which is what the US Constitution calls for) in the special sub-House could be impossible to get. At that point the Constitution does not say what should happen, who should be president. Brilliant.
Basically, when you work it through, this whole side of the US Constitution is a mess: it's not future-proofed, it isn't even present-proofed. The founders just didn't think this side of things through at all well. They' didn't even really predict or allow for the emergence of political parties - they thought every learned gentleman in the House and the Senate would and should be an independent free-thinker not the member of any faction. By as early as 1800 this was seen to be a mistake.
But, look, there are lots of states in the country that now that pack almost all their voters of one party into a few districts. E.g., Pennylvania is a roughly 50/50 Dem/Repub state but since 2010 its House delegation has been 5 Dems, 13 Repubs. The US electoral system at every level allows for these kind of distortions, and by now the system has been truly gamed so that it produces those distortions and massive illicit partisan advantage they represent every time.
If Madison and Hamilton were here today they'd be appalled that their descendants have all this additional experience and analytical machinery to spot their mistakes and yet so little of their political will to try to correct those mistakes, generally do better. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 05:26 PM)
If Madison and Hamilton were here today they'd be appalled that their descendants have all this additional experience and analytical machinery to spot their mistakes and yet so little of their political will to try to correct those mistakes, generally do better.
Well it seems to this layman that the law of unintended consequences is at work bigtime.
250 years ago or so isn't THAT long ago in the history of the world; the Constitution is probably closer to its roots in time than it seems. But of course, the timeline accelerated in the 20th Century to bring in jet planes, rockets and computers.
So many things require fixin' via changes to the Constitution. Perhaps the Founding Fathers maybe figured out that their best bet for the future was to make it VERY hard to make changes to it, no matter what the future holds.
So "alternative routes" must be found.
In the internet magazine and 24/7 cable age, I'm almost detecting a glee at the chance to wage warfare(though supposedly "non-lethal") with Trump over the results of this election a "resistance" has been declared, and I'm thinking its gonna be a lot of fun for some people who like that sort of thing.
I mean, Congress has been rigged "not to work" for about a decade now. Its as if the accepted means of governmental authority have been paralyzed on purpose. Time to "rumble" to get things done?
One big question I have about the Electoral College is: are these EC/popular vote splits now going to be more common?
It seems to me that many elections since, say, Nixon vs Kennedy, have often been landslide things: LBJ, Nixon the second time, Reagan, Clinton the second time, Obama, etc. When your race is "clear cut," the EC doesn't come so much into play.
But when the nation is seen to be "split in half, 50/50" in some way, EC troubles begin. Its happened twice in 16 years; when was the last time BEFORE 2000?
Its benefitted the Reps twice in 16 years so they won't move to fix it.
But like I say..alternative means.
Meanwhile, back to the Twitter universe:
Trump tweeted his insults at SNL and Alec Baldwin. Baldwin tweeted back a rather measured response, but SNL comic Pete Davidson's tweet back at Trump is evidently "Never been prouder. F you, Btch!"
And so, a modern President is now swapping profane insults over Twitter with an NBC comedian.
It took us a long time to reach this point. Its gonna take us a long time to move on from it. But maybe we never do -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 07:17 PM)
It seems to me that many elections since, say, Nixon vs Kennedy, have often been landslide things: LBJ, Nixon the second time, Reagan, Clinton the second time, Obama, etc. When your race is "clear cut," the EC doesn't come so much into play.
But even in case when the victory is clear-cut the EC (or any system like it) distorts the margin of victory.
E.g. 1, In 1984 Reagan got about 59% of the popular vote so a huge 59:41 or roughly 3:2 victory. But in the EC, Reagan won 49 states or 525:13 electoral college votes. That makes the basic political situation in the country looks much more one-sided than it really was, which encouraged arrogance and over-reaching
or:
E.g. 2 UK election in 2001. Tony Blair's Labour party only got 40.7% of the vote (of a US horrible level turnout of only just under 60% eligible voters) but they won 413/659 = a landslide majority of seats in parliament. Blair goes on to think and talk as though he'd got some sort of super-duper-mandate to do all sorts of blimin' nonsense when his true support in the country was only 40.7% (and really only 40.7% of 60% = 25% tops!).
Electoral systems that aggregate the results of winnner-takes-all mechanisms in separate districts just do produce distortions that do damage to a democracy even when they don't actually get the flat-out wrong answer.
E.g. 3. Pennsylvania's Federal House elections 2012 and 2016. Dems got >50% of the votes but only 5/18 reps in 2012, which seemed clearly to be the wrong answer. In 2016 Repubs got >50% of the votes and the Dems something like 48%. From a certain perspective there's no 'wrong answer' this time, the Repubs 'won' so they should get a majority of the House reps for the state. Still, the size of the majority produced is wrong. Really both cases are about equally bad: the Dems have about 50% support each time and are stuck with only getting 5/18 of their House delegation regardless. Repubs in Pennsylvania get to crow nauseatingly about how they are landslide-winners, use the powers of incumbency to further tilt the state in their direction at other levels of govt, and so on.
If people don't wise up about this sort of stuff, it's not going to stop. Rather, orse and worse results should be expected as systems well-known, myriad weaknesses get exposed and exploited more and more profoundly. -
movieghoul — 9 years ago(November 22, 2016 09:50 AM)
In case there isn't an EC majority, the Senate elects the vice president among only the top 2 candidates, with the current VP available to break a tie. So regardless of what happens in the House, a VP is assured, and that person would become acting president until the House produces a majority.
-
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 22, 2016 04:38 PM)
In case there isn't an EC majority, the Senate elects the vice president among only the top 2 candidates, with the current VP available to break a tie. So regardless of what happens in the House, a VP is assured, and that person would become acting president until the House produces a majority.
I didn't mention all the VP stuff because the separate vote for the VP in the EC is itself pretty bizarre (raising the spectre of all sorts of mischief if the contxt was an already chaotic election, or the third or fourth chaotic election in a row where the neither the popular vote not the vote on the EC has been decisive, or).
First, if the VP vote in the EC gets a majority winner when the EC vote for P doesn't then that that VP winner does become VP then acting-President (i.e., gets sworn in as VP in Jan then gets an immediate temporary promotion! meanwhile the House can stay in turmoil about the Pres forever even as the House itself gets refreshed in Jan. what a fricking mess honestly.
Anyhow, if the VP doesn't get a maj in the EC either (likely if the P doesn't) then, yes, the Senate steps in to choose between the top two VP vote-getters in the EC and that choice becomes first VP and then Acting-Pres as above. But will the Senate choose? They can't if they don't have a quorum, and in the horrific political hardball situation we're anticipating there's nothing to prevent a majority of senators (perhaps from several different parties) hightailing it rather than (as they see it) rewarding bad behavior by the opposition in the House. The Senate will change in Jan and maybe a different result will occur. Maybe.
My understanding is that if things break down the the 20th Amendment Section 3 procedure for non-qualification of either P or VP kicks in, which basically suggests that the whole House may declare Acting-president and vice-Presidents 'by law'. Congressional experts (e.g., Neale 2001, Contingent Election Congressional Research Service Report) assume that this means that the whole House would vote to follow the Presidential Succession Act (1947) and make the Speaker of the House Acting Pres. and President pro tempore of the Senate in Jan, Acting Vice-Pres. I agree that that's a pretty natural way to understand how things should play out but I'm not convinced that they would in the sorts of extraordinary crisis, consumed by partisan fury situations we're considering. The Amendment's 'may' doesn't force the House to do anything, and the purview of the Presidential succession act in electoral circumstances could be disputed (and codified by legislation rushed through with the out-going lame-duck president's signature if necessary), and would be if it was in anyone's interests to do so.
So, no, despite there being a few more steps once you bring in the VP I don't think there's much that's solid here. The EC college could fail to do its job in a lot of ways (and we haven't even got into the problems of strategizing by electors once they see what's likely to happen if things go to the special reduced House!), and those ways are going to become increasingly prominent if current trends continue (and esp. if the future for the US is more multi-party). There's a definite Legal and Political Hurricane Katrina (something that'll make Bush v. Gore look like a light breeze) coming to the US in future if it doesn't change its EC ways.
That said, the EC isn't the deep problem. Reliance on aggregating winners-that-take-all, first-past-the-post procedures which occur at every level of US Govt is. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 10:53 AM)
Since I started this cockamamie thread, I must say I've been catching episodes on DVR later and later after they air and I cant really fulfill any obligation to comment on this season episode by episode, with any regularity. Nor should I. Swanstep is much more on target about what's going on and how the musical guests are, etc.
But I'd say things can always be said about SNL..episode by episode, if something really cool occurs. So I may say more
A bit of danger for the show right now is that SNL now seems to have been enfolded into the "political fake news" sites or at least the "left rah rah" political sites like Salon and Slate so as to offer some sort of weekly proof of how badly Trump is doing ("Watch Alec Baldwin eviscerate Trump in this sketch"). There are roughly two to three SNL articles every week on these sites, and I think it is at once diluting the brand and sinking the show into the bitter morass of political hatreds. (I will certainly name Rush Limbaugh as equally rah-rah from the other side; but he doesn't, to my knowledge, spend as much time talking SNL as the lefty sites do, nor linking to SNL skits.)
For his part, Trump kept tweeting how awful SNL is every week. Maybe he's done now. Alec Baldwin tweeted back "I'll stop doing you on air if you release your tax returns." And that Davidson kid tweeted to Trump "F you, beyotch."
Ecch.
Its not that SNL hasn't always shined brightest as a political show. Its that now it seems to have been dragged into the never-ending political battles of our media age. If SNL and Trump are just going to fling insults at each other for four yearseh.
Last week, Emma Stone promoted the hell out of La La Land, and the non-political sketches were indeed, pretty unfunny. Stone was also asked as most pretty female hosts are - to enact a couple of sex-based sketches in scanty outfits. Her bit as Mary with the baby Jesus freaking out at all the uninvited wise man guests, was sort of funny.
This week, the host is pro wrestler John Cena, and I'll see it some time. I'm reminded that our most successful movie star of the moment isDwayne "The Rock" Johnsonso professional wrestling(well, the billion dollar WWE franchise) remains a training ground for Big Guy comedy charisma.
Speaking of WWE, Trump went and appointed the co-owner of the franchise, Linda McMahon, to run some federal agency.
Behold the power of Hulk Hogan! (And Trump's canny realization that wrestling fans are likely where a lot of his base are.) -
swanstep — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 06:27 PM)
Eh, a pretty weak ep.. Best for me was a video insert piece modeled on Being John Malkovich called something like 'Through Trump's Eyes' (I won't spoil how Cena was used in that, but it was good).
Lots of Aidy Bryant and Keenan Thompson this week, too much I think.
Michael Che got in one or two good snipes about Trump's childishness on Update.
That's about it.
Last week, Emma Stone promoted the hell out of La La Land, and the non-political sketches were indeed, pretty unfunny. Stone was also asked as most pretty female hosts are - to enact a couple of sex-based sketches in scanty outfits.
I was kind of amazed at how tiny Emma Stone seemed on the show. Cecily Strong towered over her, and was literally twice as wide as her. I guess it was a reminder of the severe abnormality of supermodel/Hollywood actress/Taylor Swift-type bodies - they're truly reed thin in a way that (unless you live in the right neighborhoods in NYC or LA) you never in the real world past early teens. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(December 17, 2016 09:10 AM)
Eh, a pretty weak ep..
And thus again, Trumps tweets may have drawn unnecessary attention to the fact that when SNL is NOT in its political impressions modeits not that good anymore.
I can't really feel that the show has the big "catch phrase power" of its other years: Wild and Crazy Guy, Land Shark, Cheesbuga..all the way through Wayne's World and "that was greatNOT!" etc. etc. The non-political sketches just don't have that power.
But they do haveKate McKinnon. Who scores.
Best for me was a video insert piece modeled on Being John Malkovich called something like 'Through Trump's Eyes' (I won't spoil how Cena was used in that, but it was good).
It was pretty good. And John Cena was an interesting host. The continued influence of modern-day professional wrestling(which wears its fakery on its sleeve, but STILL delivers physically punishing action and acrobatics..rather like a Kung Fu movie) on our culture is worth considering.
In some ways, Arnold and Sly back in the 80's gave us the "muscleman hero" in a manner that naturally leads to wrestlers as movie stars. The Rock has been the only mainstream breakthrough, but Cena has had small cameos in "Train Wreck" and "Sisters" , underlining the role of the "big boy toy" in today's female-centered comedies.
But of courseand very, very seriouslypro wrestling culture invaded this year's election in a big way.
Lots of Aidy Bryant and Keenan Thompson this week, too much I think.
He's funny, she's notmaybe the others had Xmas season reasons for being off the show. They aren't using the new players very much, I note. Sometimes they show up in the last sketches only.
Michael Che got in one or two good snipes about Trump's childishness on Update.
I do think Update is where the show usually shines. (One NBC exec said that "the audience will always watch the show through Update" which is why it has moved later into the show!) The jokes are generally good, Che(especially) AND Jost(it took some time) are good joke readers, and it is here where guest movie stars turn up and some of the funniest character routines are.
In fact, in the Cena episode, I thought we got two character gems on Update: Kate MacKinnon doing Merkel(this is part of her "accent trilogy" she does Italian, Russian, and German women on Update.) And then Cecily Strong bringing out again a crazed female drunk character called "Cathy Anne" that really makes me laugh. I think Strong rather "paced" MacKinnon in the "comedy chops" department here; I tried to mimic Strong's voice patterns to see how she did it, but I could not (the closest I could connect was on the name "Michelle Ruhbama" as to how to do the drunk voice. Try it out loud.)
That's about it.
I guess I'm more easily amused. And SNL is that mediocre restaurant at that good location. And I figure I'll watch it or skim its taped DVR version til my last breaths.
Last week, Emma Stone promoted the hell out of La La Land, and the non-political sketches were indeed, pretty unfunny. Stone was also asked as most pretty female hosts are - to enact a couple of sex-based sketches in scanty outfits.
I was kind of amazed at how tiny Emma Stone seemed on the show. Cecily Strong towered over her, and was literally twice as wide as her. I guess it was a reminder of the severe abnormality of supermodel/Hollywood actress/Taylor Swift-type bodies - they're truly reed thin in a way that (unless you live in the right neighborhoods in NYC or LA) you never in the real world past early teens.
I've seen some of these actresses "for real" in my visits to LA over the years, and their reed thin tininess is, indeed, not right in some way. It is as if to photograph properly, they have to starve and do God knows what else to their bodies.
The famous J-Law (in the news again with "Passengers" to release and more movies on deck, including one for Spielberg) seems a bit curvier and meatier and I think that's working for the sex appeal part of her stardom. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(December 18, 2016 07:52 PM)
Good show this week I thought. No great sketches but no weak ones either. With his beard, Affleck was a natural for both Brooklyn Hipsters and South Boston numbskulls, both of which are comically potent groups. Xmas themes also allowed the show to steer away from the TV-show sketches that are so played out (even if they are occasionally funny). Lots of Vanessa Bayer made me happy - esp. likes the Putin's friend bit on update w/ Fred Armisenit was only one joke but it was very-well-performed. Also SNL's Putin is still an absolute winner. They're going to be hard=pressed to keep that to just one appearance per show. No Star Wars-themed sketches was a bit of a surprise.
John Goodman was looking healthier than he's been in a while - still a big guy but not carrying so much weight you fear he's not going to stick around. Good to see.
In general Affeck was outshone by the regulars, but he was still an appealing presence. It was great that he didn't do a song (that stuff's got way out of hand and should in my view be reserved just for those performers who are true triple-threat types) and it was great he addressed right off the bat that the movie's he's promoting is both really good but also a mega-downer/hard-sell. Nice. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(December 21, 2016 05:12 PM)
Good show this week I thought.
I liked it.
No great sketches but no weak ones either.
About par for the course.
With his beard, Affleck was a natural for both Brooklyn Hipsters and South Boston numbskulls, both of which are comically potent groups.
Yes, he caught those well. Also with the beard, he looked a lot more like his bigger brother Ben. Funny: we've had Casey in movies at least since 2001, but h he only feels like he's arriving this year.
Xmas themes also allowed the show to steer away from the TV-show sketches that are so played out (even if they are occasionally funny).
Are you thinking of the TV GAME show sketches? Using the game show as a template sure seems to be a way to get pretty easy(and legit) laughs for SNL. But indeed, a break is welcome sometime.
On the other hand, they also spoof local TV MORNING shows, so
Lots of Vanessa Bayer made me happy -
I don't know how these things work. Some weeks ago, she was barely on. Then this episode, all over the place. Look, Kate's getting all the press and Cecily is interestingly funny too butVanessa with that great smile(its like her ENTIRE act) and her way with female AND male(boy) characterspretty good.
I saw an interview recently for some Xmas movie(Christmas Office Party), which has Kate and Vanessa in the cast, where Kate was seated next to Vanessa. Poor Vanessa. Its not that Kate stopped her from talkingits just that all the questions went to Kate!
esp. likes the Putin's friend bit on update w/ Fred Armisenit was only one joke but it was very-well-performed.
Nice of Fred to drop by(and get gigantic "recognition applause" earlier on.) I thought the sketch was funny, low-key, and Vanessa was cute as a button.
Also SNL's Putin is still an absolute winner. They're going to be hard=pressed to keep that to just one appearance per show.
I just hope Beck Bennett can keep the weight off for as long as is necessary. The shirtless aspect makes things funny from the start.
No Star Wars-themed sketches was a bit of a surprise.
Ah, perhaps because the first host of 2017 is the star of Rogue Wars or whatever its called?
John Goodman was looking healthier than he's been in a while - still a big guy but not carrying so much weight you fear he's not going to stick around. Good to see.
Yes. Irony, though. Alec Baldwin lost some weight a few years back, but its back bigtime. I thought he was wearing a fake belly to play Trump , butno.
Consequently, here is John Goodman standing next to Alec Baldwin and he's the thin(ner) one. That would not have been the case in 1990.
In general Affeck was outshone by the regulars, but he was still an appealing presence. It was great that he didn't do a song (that stuff's got way out of hand and should in my view be reserved just for those performers who are true triple-threat types) and it was great he addressed right off the bat that the movie's he's promoting is both really good but also a mega-downer/hard-sell. Nice.
An OK host, to be sure. He held his own and he helped make his name. Yeah, I liked him being direct about his sad movie.
BUT WAIT: They've done it before, but that sketch where Kate sits, legs wide open in jeans, next to two "normal" people and gives her own rendition of what happened when three people had a "magical experience" is a great sketch. Before, the gag has been: the three people were taken aboard UFOs. This time: the three people met Santa. But Kate's story is always a lot more rough, raw, and sexually weird than the other two, and she plays the character to the max: smoking, legs apart, hard Midwest(?) biker-mama accent. Hilarious. "These two next to me sound like they're inna Disney movie" she intoned, "I didn't meet Santa, but I met his helper called Kringlemouse." Got funny from there.
SNL still sometimes has it, even if its a bit warmed over and predictable. A laugh is a laugh. Kate as the barroom hanger-on getting it on with some drunk guy is another great recurring sketch.
AND ALSO: Hillary returns in a spoof of a famous, rather oversweet scene in Love Actually(a scene that starred Keira Knightly AND the current male lead of The Walking Dead HE's a star now, a star in Love Actually.) Pretty funny andmanaged to make a fair amount of fun of Hillary(retroactively?) while still making fun of Trump. NOTE: SNL spoofed this very same scene some years ago, with Amy Adams in it. I think the scene was cut from the live show, filmed at dress, and then put out on Hulu.