Genuine non-smartass question for those in the thread who think the show is terrible. Why do you continue to watch it? I understand watching a series that's gone downhill where you've invested time in the plot over a few seasons and therefore have incentive to see it to the end. That's not applicable here though. Maybe let me phrase my question another way: is there a point where you would ever stop watching SNL?

'SNL used to be funny but is terrible now' is something that I've heard every single season since I was old enough to know what SNL was in the late 80's/early 90's. Literally every season without exception. I guess I just don't get it. I watch it because I think some of the skits are funny, and for the unfunny/terrible ones I at least enjoy trying to think about what the writers were actually going for and where it all went wrong.

I also get really tired of people bashing how bad it "has become." You're right people have been saying that for decades. The old episodes (80s and earlier) are legit awful IMO. I think people just like the show more when they are younger and have a less sophisticated sense of humor. Plus the obvious hipster points for criticizing tv.

Also selective memory. Sure everyone remembers the classic Will Farrell skits but you probably don't remember all the crappy filler skits that are inevitable for an hour and a half sketch show.

This turned into a major tl;dr
Sorry

My reason for watching is the same as what you said in the last few sentences in your post.

I've definitely torn into the show, but I don't believe I'm one of those "yeah the show sucks. It's awful." etc. people. I have a deep, personal connection to this show. I am an inveritable SNL encyclopedia. I've probably seen every episode of the show, save for maybe a few dozen from the early 80s days. But I was raised on the show from a very young age, with my dad sharing with me episodes from the 70s and 80s that he'd taped, or SNL compilation specials he had, like the best of Christmas Sketches, and so on.

I knew from a young age that I wanted to be an actor, and specifically took to comedy, and much of my training has been in honing that skill, with the intention of being a successful working actor, but also with the thought in the back of my mind of trying to get on SNL. I've trained with Groundlings, Second City, Improvolympic, etc. and have done sketch comedy and improv for 15 years, a lot of which was in a professional setting.

I have several friends who have worked on the show as writers, or have been through the audition process, and I've heard lots of great, fascinating stories from the inside. In addition, if you have an interest, two books have been written about the inside stories of SNL throughout the years. One of which, Live From New York, is the more main stream and well known one, but there is actually another that is much more scathing, and the title escapes me at the moment, but I will find it tomorrow and post the title if anyone is interested.

Until recent years, I had considered SNL to be the barometer of great sketch, but I now realize not only because of its decline in comedy but also the rise of so many other great sketch shows (and an explosion of creativity now available to us bc of the internet) that what SNL really is is the barometer for a SUCCESFUL show, if we define success not as in quality but as in money making, fame, and influence. It is certainly the most main stream sketch show there is.

The show fascinates me because it has become so ingrained in our culture and has been on so long that it is truly woven into American pop culture. I mean, if there was a book of the 10 most significant or influential television shows of all time, it would have to be one of them.

And yet, so many people either don't watch it or think it sucks. I'd have to think most people 25-75 probably couldn't name one person in the cast now. I couldn't even speak to people 25 and under, I have no clue if they watch it.

I know I've already spoken to the underlying problems of the show in past posts, but I think what we're seeing right now is the things that have been an issue for the show for years are finally reaching a tipping point where the show could really be done in the not too distant future. I would guess that the show is probably 5 years away from Lorne retiring, and once this happens, there's a good chance they'll just end the show.

I actually think that it would be a shame for two reasons: first that a staple of American pop culture will be over. Second and more importantly, I think that Lorne is exactly what is wrong with the show, and has been for the longest time. A new show runner could really do wonders for SNL.

It almost pains me to watch the evolution of new cast members on the show, starting out as wide eyed and optimistic, hoping to have the opportunity to show what makes them unique, only to be beaten down over time. They're given a choice: You can either take what you have and change it to fit in with THE SNL PROCESS or, be phased out over time through lack of airtime, and being shunned by writers and fellow cast mates until you either choose to quit or are fired.

And if you are so fortunate as to get something on the air that is special,, and new, and resonates with the audience, it's immediately cheapened by repitition and laziness, and Lorne's desire to capitolize on something funny overtakes his joy of comedy, and we're back to the tired, same old crap again.

Just take this last episode. The Twin Bed Song from earlier in the season was definitely one of the shining sketches of the season, but then they try to do it again, with a majorly inferior song in Dongs Around The World, that just fell totally flat. How many recurring characters in the past decade have actually been even remotely as enjoyable as they were when first introduced? Maaaaybe Stefon? But there's a reason for that. Each appearance was predicated on the idea that Hader was most likely going to break at some point because he had no idea what he was going to be reading. There was an excitement in the almost improvisational feel of those sketches; the wonder of the unknown.

Similarly, a lot the big laughs in sketches come from when people **** up or something goes wrong. Even the Debbie Downer sketches didn't take off until the second one, when everyone was breaking the whole time. Admittedly, it was hilarious, and then not surprisingly, every time after they did another one, it wasn't really that good. Because the sketch wasn't about people breaking. They just happened to break that one time. And the sketch was never actually that funny.

You can actually have a lot of the same kinds of sketches if you have really awesome performers, whose presence in the sketches alone gives it that feeling of excitement. Performers who are so goddamn funny doing absolutely nothing. But performers like this are hard to find. There's only one Will Ferrell. There was only one Chris Farley. Usually, each cast has only one. Belushi. Eddie Murphy. Dana Carvey. In his last few seasons, I think Hader had some of that. And it gives the rest of the cast a confidence. A security that there is the potential, even in the worst sketches, for there to be something funny.

But who was that person to pass that along for this new cast? There have been several cast members that have shown some of that spark. Will Forte. Armisen. Samberg, but his is more in his writing, and the digital shorts. Armisen was too alternative for the show, and Forte was too weird. The big name of the past decade was Kristen Wiig, but I never got that feeling from her where everything she did was funny. And it was never about chemistry with her and other cast members, like it was for, say, Farley, Sandler, and Spade. Or Ferrell, Kattan, Cheri O'Teri, Ana Gastayer, and Molly Shannon. Those people had been doing improv and sketch together for years before SNL, and they worked so well together. Even Fallon and Sanz, which seemed to be more about trying to crack each other up, was fun to watch. That sense of fun is what is missing from the show.

The feel now is 17 different performers who are each individually trying to show off for the camera when it's time for their lines. Like they're all still auditioning for their jobs. There's very little chemistry, or playing off of each other. And frankly, it's hard to do that when there are SEVENTEEN OF YOU! I really like Taran Killiam. He is really damn talented and could be that hub of confidence and quality for this cast, but the cast size and format won't allow him to be. I sort of feel bad for him. I feel like everything he does has an energy of desperation, like he can see that the ship is going down around him, but he'll be damned if it goes down on his watch. This season could have been where he really could have started to take over. With no Sudeikis or Hader, the opportunity was ripe. But then Lorne brings out 6 new young white males, and even though they're not all as leading man as he is, they still need to get airtime.

Lorne has become a cancer on the show. He's famously aloof and unreachable. He's manipulative. He pits people against each other. His choices for sketches are completely lazy. This is not something new. It may have been there since the beginning, in subtler forms, but has gradually increased over the past 39 years. Like a tumor that starts off as a mole, it's metastasized into the size of a grapefruit and now it's in your bones. He is now so comfortable in what he does that he is either blind to how it affects the show he's created, or he just doesn't care.

The show feels tired and bored with itself. What it boils down to is this:
1. Comedy must change.
2. SNL (more specifically Lorne) refuses to change.

It wants to give you exactly what it's been giving you since the beginning, and frankly there's something sad about it. I'm as hard as I am on the show because it's something I love, like a relative who has become a drug addict. I feel helpless and all I can really do is send unconditional love from afar and realize that SNL can change but only if SNL wants to change. But for that to happen, it might have to really hit rock bottom. And what gives me hope is that every now and then the show does something kind of special, and I know that deep down, Lorne is still the 30 year old guy who gets excited by trying new things. Maybe for just one sketch per episode, Lorne the comedy lover and Lorne risk taker overpower Lorne the Producer.

That's why I watch.

Thanks for the well written, well thought out response. You made some very good points and I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. If you could come up with that alternate book title (I've already read Live from New York) I'd really appreciate it.

I agree that Lorne can't be too far from retiring, and it will certainly be interesting to see what happens to the show at that point.

Found it. It's called Saturday Night. It's by Doug Hill and Jeff Weingrad and is from 1986. So obviously it only covers the original cast and then the non-Lorne early 80s years. In fact, I don't even think Lorne had come back yet from where the book ends.

Still a really good read.

Have to assume Seth Rogen is responsible for most of the uptick in quality of last night's show.

im gonna say something that might seem controversial... Jacob is my least favorite SNL character off all time. from the tired jewish schtick, to the voice, to the accent, to the goofiest face ive ever seen... the absolute nut low. worse than your least favorite Kristen Wigg character, worse than the most annoying Chris Kattan character, worse than Top Dog Chef!

I thought Jacob was funny the first couple of times, but got old a while ago.

Exchange Jacob with any other character, ever.

But yeah, Jacob definitely got old really quickly. I feel like they keep doing it because the audience seems to give it a pretty good reaction every time. Maybe it works better live or something.

Wait, people actually liked Jacob at one point?

I chuckle over some of the facial expressions and body language, but then again, I liked about half of Kristen Wiig's character's too, although I can see how she had some repetitive qualities in many of her characters that can be annoying.

im pretty the SNL studio has a "Recurring Character" light that blinks with the applause light to inform people to clap louder, b/c i don't believe most of the recurring characters are beloved.

Turgit lady >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacob. To be fair though, i might be the biggest Bayer Hater (that should be a common term btw) on the internet. the only time i don't notice how damn goofy she is is when she plays a lowkey mom or something

conz is there anything vanessa bayer has done that you like?

is it me or has keenan been on since will ferrel's time? him, darryl hammond and tim meadows (armisen too?) must have been on the longest but its just a guess

i just said, she's tolerable playing the "straight woman" character like a mom or something, or in those commercials where she's always the boring wife.

when she actually attempts to be funny, she's one of the most distractingly bad comedians ive ever seen.

SNL is almost worth watching just for the three minutes Kyle Mooney gets each week. I mean, not really, but he is an absolute highlight on the reg.

Lots of mistakes on that list. Most glaringly I don't think Phil Hartman was on the show through 2011.

Also, I'm assuming that's Seth Meyers' entire tenure as writer shown there.

Yup. I pretty much never skip ahead except for certain musical guests and I had to snap FF on Jacob.



Ed Sheeran was kid was good btw.

It's also not funny and is literally the exact same thing every time

Last episode was pretty forgettable, but Jebediah was great, he's far and away my favorite recurring character

I thought the wedding sketch was a funny idea that actually could have gone a little further, and Andrew Garfield delivered pretty solidly (in that sketch.)

Donald Sterling opening sketch also pretty good. Also the Beygency I found to be pretty clever, even though I didn't actually lol that much.

The Mooney recorded sketch that was cut was better than the show

Vogelchek (sp?) skit killed and pornstar skit is definitely their best recurring in years.