SNL Digital Short: Fire And Rainn

Do note Win holding a Starbucks in the Short. Priceless.

Posted by: Finchmeister at February 25, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply
Score = 0

Ha.

I thought Win only drank holy water.

Posted by: scott at February 25, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply
Score = 0

holy water with a double shot of espresso

ba-ZING

Posted by: tmccool at February 25, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply
Score = 0

The surrealism has definitely been amplified up on SNL this year. The "Pulp Fiction" ending to the jukebox sketch was similar. In previous years, that sketch would've just ended normally. I guess things have opened up a bit since Tina F. left, and they are taking some cues from the absurdist humor on Conan. The show has been more good than bad this year, and it feels fresh for the first time in about 15 years. Do we have the Lonely Island guys to thank for that? It seems so.

Posted by: adm at February 25, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply
Score = 0

the jukebox sketch was the best of last night, but it doesn't look like it's hit youtube yet. pretty solid episode all around, particularly the first half hour.

Posted by: greg at February 25, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply
Score = 0

you guys are definitely smoking something, cause last night's show was painfully unfunny. I hardly cracked a smile, it was just absolutely cringeworthy how uninspired the show has become. It seems like speaking with "funny" accents is the central ingredient for humor in every other skit.

Posted by: jb at February 25, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply
Score = 0

Cut human resources?!?
Anything Arcade Fire does is awesome.
www.mybigmouthstrikesagain.com

Posted by: Christopher at February 25, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply
Score = 0

Some skits are funny, others are awful, generally the women actors are the most unfunny, not that women can't be humorous, but the ones they pick are godawful, mostly it feels like you're watching a high school skit gone terribly wrong, and is it me or has weekend update run its course? (most harrowing fifteen minutes of my entire life)

Posted by: James at February 25, 2007 7:13 PM | Reply
Score = 0

I'm with JB. You just posted the only funny skits that aired last night. That's less than 6 minutes of actual comedy in a painfully long 90-minute show (45 minutes of which are commercials). SNL has been dead for years. Not even the hip bands they're booking can save them. People will just watch the good clips on YouTube the next day.

Posted by: kerbot2000 at February 25, 2007 7:13 PM | Reply
Score = 0

This year's SNL has been refreshingly un-unfunny. I think it has more to do with the hosts than the writing, though. I don't know if I've seen any obvious cuecard reading at all this season.

Plus the musical guests haven't sucked.

Whatever they've done, they've done it right. (But I don't think it's a Tina thing... 30 Rock is pretty freaking hilarious.)

Posted by: jenny at February 25, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply
Score = 0

I'm with JB. You just posted the only funny skits that aired last night. That's less than 6 minutes of actual comedy in a painfully long 90-minute show (45 minutes of which are commercials). SNL has been dead for years. Not even the hip bands they're booking can save them. People will just watch the good clips on YouTube the next day.

Posted by: kerbot2000 at February 25, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply
Score = 0

To be fair, SNL has ///always/// been more crap than not. (Watching the first season makes me wonder why it wasn't cancelled after two or three weeks.)

But it's better now. Slightly.

Posted by: jenny at February 25, 2007 7:25 PM | Reply
Score = 0

This digital short was quite enjoyable. Most of the shorts have been, but I disagree entirely with the show being better now. I, for one, do think that the departure of Tina Fey is a large factor. Fey was head writer from 1999-2006, and I don't think the show (or Weekend Update) had been as solid or will be for quite some time. I don't think Fey's leaving is the only reason for the immediate decline. I think the largely fresh cast and presumably fresh writers are still fumbling to come into their own. I think there's a writing problem in that some cast members are called on to do exactly what they do. Andy Samberg has been called on to play his self in anything he can since the online sensation of the first digital shorts. Darrell Hammond and Kristen Wiig's abilities are drastically underutilized, Jason Sudeikis is grossly overutilized and overestimated, and Kenan Thompson has repeatedly failed to be as funny as he was on All That or Kenan & Kel - and, for your reference, that was not intended as a compliment for either Nickelodeon program. Furthermore, I think that evident budget cuts are taking their toll on the show's credibility. While I often enjoyed Horatio Sanz and Chris Parnell, I recognize their growing needlessness on the show, but what about the payroll for technical directors and sound technicians? In the handful of episodes I've watched this season, I've found it impossible to get any further than Weekend Update. I don't know if script copies are being printed incorrectly, knobs are being mislabeled, or control rooms aren't equipped with qualified employees, but why can no one figure out which mic Seth and Amy are using, and when they'll next speak?! That, above all (believe it or not), frustrates me to the point of apathy with SNL. Sometimes good writing cannot be forced. Sometimes actors struggle to come into their own. Hosts cannot be depended on, but should rather be featured. Bands alone will never attract viewers for four minutes at 12:15AM on a Saturday night. But with a scripted comedy show that has managed to exist for nearly 30 years, someone can manage to do just about everything else correctly.

Posted by: Tim at February 25, 2007 8:50 PM | Reply
Score = 0

Wow Tim, doing your dissertation on the current plight of late-night comedy shows?

Posted by: Adam at February 25, 2007 9:29 PM | Reply
Score = 0

I think the Lonely Island guys are definitely helping to bring the funny. Someone at FOX should be kicking themselves for passing on
Awesometown & not putting Mad TV out of its misery. Mad TV is still on, right?

Posted by: Lucas at February 25, 2007 10:56 PM | Reply
Score = 0

tim: tl;dr

Posted by: goo at February 26, 2007 12:15 AM | Reply
Score = 0

the office opening was great :)
not as great as it could have been, but still great.

Posted by: vladislalalava at February 26, 2007 2:05 AM | Reply
Score = 0

I keep hearing how great this Kristen Wiig person is. Am I missing something? She was, quite possibly, the worst part of last night's episode. The whole show was painfully unfunny, and the only redeeming factor of the "comedy" bits was Rainn Wilson. His monologue was great, and while I did very much enjoy his half shirt and undies outfit in the Black Snake Moan parody sketch, the writing is awful.

Posted by: Sarah at February 26, 2007 2:47 AM | Reply
Score = 0

The show is painfully long and not so funny i really don't understand what all the hype is about. Have you seen GLOG before? check it out for tv listings in your state.
http://cafe.glogster.com/

Posted by: thatcher at February 26, 2007 6:20 AM | Reply
Score = 0

the office opening was funny. the michael scott thing should have been better.

Posted by: lk at February 26, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply
Score = 0

SNL has been so largely and consistently terrible for so long now that it's given way to an interest phenomenon: people are actually starting to come around to this sort of weird state of denial about how unfunny it is.

The result that we get all this tepid, half-a-boner, hey-this-episode-wasn't-bad optimism; we get people that are genuinely excited about Andy Samberg as if he wasn't the unnecessary comic heir to Jimmy Fallon; and, most startlingly, we get people that still opt to endure this overlong charity case of a program every week.

For every "Dick In A Box", there's hours of negligible filler material, most of which comprise entire shows.

Posted by: KingHater at February 26, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply
Score = 0

...and at the beginning that was meant to say "interesting".

Posted by: KingHater at February 26, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply
Score = 0

"people that still opt to endure this overlong charity case of a program every week"

It's because we all have TiVos. You watch it on Sunday and fast-forward through the skits that are obviously never going to be funny. It's worth it to catch stuff like this.

Posted by: G at February 26, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply
Score = 0

For years and years and years people have been complaining about how SNL is no longer funny and that the 'old days' were one million times better. But, is it not entirely possible that the older shows only seem more golden because you only remember the classic and great skits? No one remembers there was a shit load of bad skits back then too, because the bad ones dont stick in your mind. I love alot of this 'fresh' cast and they do some legitimately hilarious skits sometimes, but yes, there is also a lot of filler and/or terrible material in the show. But it's always been there.

Posted by: alan at February 26, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply
Score = 0

Ha! Half-a-boner. That's my new favorite descriptor. So right on and useful.

And you've nailed the particular brand of optimism at play here. The show was indeed better during several runs in the past, and we're all wanting it to reach those heights again (with the understanding that there have always been dud sketches, as noted above). We keep waiting for the right mix to align itself and want to be forgiving enough to keep it going until it does. Ugh, really dragging though. The experiments in new styles and directions is probably a good thing towards that end. Gives it a chance, at least.

I think Samberg is more Sandler than Fallon, a lot of potential, and a decent amount already realized. Fallon was the poor man's leading funny dude, who had some great spots (Saugerties radio DJ all time fave) and overall decent batting average, but who liked to laugh at his own stuff and self-congratulate a bit - shades of Colin Quinn in that respect. Samberg has that I-don't-give-a-shit absurdity a la of Adam Sandler, just an absolute kook bursting with quivering, absurd funny, if not always understood/appreciated. Love that guy.

Wiig seems to be technically skilled, but has never once come off as funny to me. Like, she nailed (Office) Pam's expressions, demeanor, and camera-glances. Great, accurate impression there, and elsewhere, but not funny. Wal-Mart check out lady with "craazy!" accent - not funny. Somebody's Aunt on WU, almost funny for about a half second, but then yeah, not. Seems like she'd be a solid bit-part player in Hollywood, or a decent medium character on a network drama. Talented but in the wrong place.

Sudeikis, kind of funny, but pretty much a utility player. Seth Myers, capable utility player, but overused and will never be a standout or a hit. Seems a tad smug and overproud of himself. Keenan T, bad. All his stuff seems similar and predictable and never hits more than a basehit or seems to give a shit. Hey we need somebody to be (Office) Stanley. Keenan can do it! Go Keenan! Huh. Yeah that was Stanley. OK man, go get your Bill Cosby stuff on and we'll see you in 45 minutes. Fred A, obscure weirdo who seems to have something special in him that won't come out, except that one time as giant parrot guy. Forte... Forte... glimpses of good stuff. Gets a "heh" now and then, an occasional smirk too, the beginning of a tickle that you want to come, but ultimately a smile, not a laugh. Doesn't quiiite elicit the desired guffaw. Darrell Hammond, master impressionist who seems to study hard for his impressions, yet overall presence on the show feels like he's ultimately phoning it in. Not challenged. Can't find better work so earning that steady paycheck at SNL. Dreams of moving on again.

Amy P, solid utility with some notable high marks. Maya R, could do sooo much better. Brilliant yet slumming.

Just my impressions.

Posted by: Eric at February 27, 2007 12:09 AM | Reply
Score = 0

tl;dr

Posted by: Erik Erikson at February 27, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply
Score = 0

fymf;asmd

Posted by: KingHater at February 27, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply
Score = 0

Shouldn't Lorne be more comfortable being on camera by this point?

Posted by: Patrick M at February 28, 2007 10:17 AM | Reply
Score = 0

SNL is awful now. But I do like the digital shorts. The chief bigcloud part is pretty great.

Posted by: Mira at May 30, 2007 12:45 AM | Reply
Score = 0