Talk:Saturday Night Live/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Saturday Night Live. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Hot Chick

As bad as it was (never saw it myself though) it wasn't based on any SNL characters IIRC. The "hot chick" segments that he did with Farley were completely different from anything in this movie. I removed it. 75.21.89.187 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

David Grohl

Since David Grohl appeared with Tenacious D as "The Metal", shouldn't his appreance tally be at 8?--TheBooRadley 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't him. -- Viewdrix 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Black F-bomb?

Somebody has already edited the infamous moments section to say that Jack Black swore during his monologue tonight, but it is not clear that he did, some think he was trying to say "funky" instead. Should we leave that bit off for now? I've edited it in the meantime. Ab85 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I took it off. Even if that is what he said, nobody really made a big deal out of it. It's not infamous at all.

I put it back on. I belive it was part of a possible infamous moment in SNL history!!

 Newsflash930 02:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Newsflash930

I saw this and did not think it was what he said - he said "funky". Was it mentioned anywhere in the news? I couldn't find anything anywhere. Jeff schiller 04:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No one cared about that, and it's clear to me that he said "funky." Macarion 03:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sinead screencaps

I'm not sure if this would be relevant though.

Untitled

As a matter of accuracy, I believe the music director was actually a gentleman by the name of Howard Shore, who played the incredible sax solos during the closing credits. I don't know the years of his tenure but he was there from the very first show as shown by visiting the transcripts site at http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75agoodnights.phtml (this is for the first show).

A bit of his 'pedigree': he was with a band from Canada in the late 60's and early 70's called Lighthouse; arguably the first rock 'n' roll orchestra, predating Electric Light Orchestra. Since then he has written several incredible movie soundtracks, including those for 'The Lord of the Rings'.

This one's for you, Howard. Love your work.

Ken Granger, Indianapolis, IN

Yes, SNLs first musical director was none other than future-Academy Award winning composer Howard Shore. I'll have to find out specifically when he left, but I'm almost certain it was sometime during the 70s. I'm pretty sure Paul Schaffer took his place for a while, or he may have stayed on through the whole "original" run, in which case he would have left in 1980. Definately no later than that.user:Bmb8609

=

What is the source for the following qualification? Every history of the show agrees that he clearly said "fuck."

"cast member Charles Rocket uttered the word "fuck" (he actually said "frig", but it could have been interpreted as "fuck") "

He may be thinking of Paul Schaffer who accidentally said "fucking" when he meant to say "friggin." As for Charles Rocket, he most definately did say it loud and clear (I've seen the ep). No argument here.

Copyvio impact

Why lock this article? Why not just revert to the last copyvio-free version? - Bevo 23:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Is that procedure? Forgive me if that's the case, but I thought doing that would leave the copyvio in page history -- also not good. (As a matter of fact, the same editor dumped two big c&p copyvios here in rapid succession; I reverted the first one, then listed the second on the Copyvio page.) –Hajor 23:11, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, it's now reverted to the "clean" 4 May version. Sorry for the cock-up. –Hajor

Nothing to be sorry for! Good catch regarding the suspicious content. I didn't know the exact procedure either, but it turned out to be what I thought would be the case for copyvio process late in the life of an established article. You caught it almost immediately, and so helped keep us from having to redo subsequent edits. - Bevo 14:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

update

I think the information in this article needs an update. Most of it represents SNL in the 80s and early 90s (and even eariler?). –Matt 10:29, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the page? Acegikmo1 16:10, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression that we actually did something about copyvios. -- Jim Regan 23:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why are there multiple links to the Al Franken page? All the other persons mentioned only got a single link each.

Is there a reason none of the names in the opening section are wikified? RadicalSubversiv E 07:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Every Saturday Night?

The very first sentence seems possibly not true when it says it ran every Saturday night. Just a minor thing, but didn't it occasionally alternate with some wrestling show in the 80s or 90s? Spalding 16:34, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I started looking at the archive site, and the 87-88 season stopped in February and had only 13 shows compared to the usual 20, so I will try to find when it might have alternated with wrestling. Once I find it I guess it could go in the history section. Spalding 17:20, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to "virtually" every Saturday Night. I think that's the best way to do it without getting into too many confusing details. The show did alternate with WCW Saturday Night Wrestling. I believe that was in the 85 season. Also, I think it alternated with Second City TV (SCTV) during the 1980 season when ratings dropped. And of course there are always special events (usually sporting, or pageants) that will sometimes air instead, especially during the offseason. So, I think it's hardly reasonable to say "every" Saturday Night without some kind of reservation.--user:Bmb8609

Conspiracy Theory Rock

I wanted to put this into the Trivia section but I'm at a loss, where do I put it and does it even fit there?

http://www.tvparty.com/unseenf.html

Cut from that page: It only aired once, and then was mysteriously cut out from that episode's rebroadcasts. NBC claimed it was pulled because it "wasn't funny," but that's the same excuse they gave when they canned Norm MacDonald. Instead of undermining the cartoon's joking around about NBC suppressing information and squashing dissent, it proved the point, instead.

View it here:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/conspiracy.php

JoeHenzi 01:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about adding it to Robert Smigel's article? It's kinda bare. --Feitclub 21:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Childeren's Television Series?

I didn't realize SNL should be categorized as a "children's" show...I could have sworn it was thouroughly adult...I don't think [[Category:Children's television series]] is appropriate...I am removing it...

Jon, Conqueror of Men 17:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Audio Glitches

I just saw the oh-so-tragic (except probably not) audio glitch right before Ashlee Simpson was to perform. Is this an oddity? Has this happened a lot? Does it merit inclusion in the article, considering the show is live? Mike H 04:51, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

From what I hear, almost every artist uses backup tracks to reinforce his or her own voice (to make it sound more powerful or whatever). If you noticed, Eminem also used backup tracks the Saturday following Ashlee Simpson's "accident." There were a few moments at which you could hear his voice loud and clear, even though his mouth was closed and away from the microphone. The only difference between Ashlee Simpson and Eminem is that Eminem didn't do a silly dance and walk off the stage.

- It's one of those insignificant events that somehow gains national attention. IMHO, leave it out of this article. –Matt 23:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- I think that Eminem was only using it for that weird little screaming noise that was in "Just Lose It", which is understandable, since it's not something easily reproduced, I'm guessing. However, whether it was a backing track, a lipsync track, or what, the fact remains that Ashlee did a pisspoor job of being professional about the mixup. Whether it was a Milli Vanilli moment or not, she managed to make it look real bad. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 23:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Order of Catch Phrases?

I can't see any means of order in these. I want to add one, so for now I'll just stick it at the end. Spalding 17:29, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson non-issue

EveryKing seems to think that I am not being "neutral" in regards to the big star Ashlee Simpson and her SNL controversy. In reality, I honestly don't care that much one way or the other. I said that she "walked off" not because I hate her, but because that's what she did, and what even she has said. I did not put a litany of details about the event because there is already plenty of explanation in her bio, which is clearly linked to in the SNL article. OK? You can stop "watching until doomsday".

Well, that's good that you don't care. What I said about watching until doomsday was an expression of my frustration at having to watch a variety of articles I really don't care much about just to keep people from saying nasty or untrue things about Ashlee, such as that she was lip-synching (as you wrote), when she herself denies this and says she was just singing along with a backing track because she was sick. Everyking 20:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's what it appeared as. Perhaps the reference should be rephrased to something like "Ashlee's backing track fouled up [better term needed here], giving the appearance that she was lipsynching"? While she most likely wasn't, the media frenzy surrounding her almost overwhelmingy used lipsynch to describe what happened. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 20:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's just fine how it is; there's no sense in perpetuating false perceptions. Everyking 00:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

EveryKing should simply be banned from editing this page (any edits should be automatically reverted). He has clearly stated that he's going to insist that the encyclopedia represent the official view of Ashlee Simpson and her public relations crew - which is not a neutral position. (Every major press organ described her as lip-syncing.) 68.118.61.219 20:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ha, well, I say accusing her of lip-synching isn't a neutral position, and I think I have a much better reason for saying so. Everybody agrees the issue was that the wrong backing track played, so that's how I stated it; beyond that things are controversial. Everyking 22:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note also that I've not objected to this:

Some live shows may also be altered and edited for the west coast the same night, such as a 2004 show in which, as the New York Times reported in the article 'Ailing Singer Needed Lip-Sync', "a technical foul-up on the NBC show "Saturday Night Live" exposed the pop singer Ashlee Simpson's use of prerecorded vocals on live television."

remaining in the article, even though it's clearly just a sneaky way to accuse her of lip-synching by citing a newspaper article title. If I was really doing what the anon says I am, I'd fight against including that. Everyking 22:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe the anon is right, after I got to thinking about it I felt compelled to go back and change that. I think the change improved the article, though. Everyking 02:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This thing gained enough notice in the press -- more even than the Charles Rocket thing did -- that it bears mentioning in the article. However, this isn't the place to try to present a full picture of the event and the surrounding controversy, excuses, and accusations; if anywhere, that belongs in the Simpson article. I've tried to limit the discussion to what is actually known and agreed about what was seen on the show, which I think is appropriate. Specifically, going into what was shown on another show (60 minutes) is an off-topic digression. Jgm 21:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the 60 Minutes show was about that episode of SNL! Didn't you see it? It puts it all in perspective. By citing 60 Minutes, we can properly represent what happened on SNL that night, instead of just making Ashlee look bad. Everyking 21:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everyking removed a new section that summarized "infamous" moments, apparently because they included mention of this incident. Since this did in fact result in huge publicity and press coverage I think it is very appropriate for inclusion in this section; furthermore the section is a nice way to sum up the various controversial events. Jgm 02:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And coincidentally, it lumps the incident in with such things as profanity spoken on air and the tearing up of the pope's picture. The notoriety and significance to the show are not nearly on the same level, and so it shouldn't be written that way. Everyking 02:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the time being, I've reverted your edits, added back the section, and simply deleted the Ashlee incident from that grouping because the other two do need to be there. Mike H 02:40, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

All right, I'm fine with that, but I was thinking the mention of the other two was already in the article somewhere. Forgive me if it wasn't. Everyking 02:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It probably has. As more of a viewer of SNL than an editor of this article, I would appreciate it if someone else edited out the redundancies. Mike H 02:50, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I look, I was right, both of the incidents are mentioned elsewhere; the Rocket incident is right above it. Everyking 02:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again Everyking has deleted mention of the Ashlee Simpson incident, after multiple unsuccessful attempts to add excuses and digressions. "Infamous" in this case is referring to events that made news headlines outside of the entertainment industry; clearly the Simpson incident (which Everyking him/herself mentioned was the subject of much press including a "60 Minutes" story) meets this criterion. I've also condensed and added the section about Andrew Dice Clay's appearance to this section. Jgm 00:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I won't accept calling it infamous and grouping it together with much worse incidents from the past. It's simply unfair and it's being taken out of the broader context. Everyking 00:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you'll accept is not at issue; what is a fair and accurate description is. A few seconds' research comes up with this from CBS news -- yes, the same outfit that did the 60 Minutes' piece you wanted to include by way of excuse -- quoth:

60 Minutes' cameras just happened to be there on the occasion of one of the show's most famous flubs ever.( . . .) 60 Minutes had an exclusive behind-the-scenes view of Ashlee Simpson's infamous lip-sync incident on "Saturday Night Live" last week (. . .)

And this from KSL TV -- quoth:

Simpson got caught red-handed on live television. There has been a whirlwind of controversy surrounding the incident (. . . ) [Students] couldn't stop talking about Simpson's infamous Saturday Night Live performance.

And this from MSNBC -- quoth:

It was the most eye-opening moment in entertainment phoniness since we learned that Milli Vanilli didn’t really sing their songs ( . . .) Singer Ashlee Simpson talks with "Today" host Katie Couric about her now infamous "Saturday Night Live" performance (. . .)

And those are just from the first page of Google results. In fact, Googling "Ashlee Simpson" and "infamous" yields over 13,000 hits. This section is indeed the right place to mention the event. Jgm 02:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I'll accept most certainly is an issue, unless you feel like revert warring every day from here on out. What is your objection to my rewording? I didn't even remove it from the "infamous" section, even though I find it objectionable, yet you reverted it, and even reverted my capitalization fix of the section header. Everyking 06:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked that someone with your history, experience, and ambition with WP would so blatantly threaten an edit war. Perhaps we can talk about content rather than threatening? (Although I'm not sure this can be done in good faith since we have settled on "compromise" versions before but then you deleted the section completely). I do think (as noted above) that "Infamous Moments" is the right place for this, and I do think the best way to go is a simple, accurate mention of what happened -- trying to minimize it by saying "briefly" or including any of the various reasons/excuses offered later does not change the basic facts of what happened on the show (again, for parallelism, there were various excuses/explanations offered by Charles Rocket when he screwed up; those are -- rightly -- not mentioned either). I also think we must mention the fact that Simpson walked off stage, in addition to being exposed as using vocal tapes. Sorry about the capitalization thing, I failed to notice that change. Jgm 13:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All right, it can go in the Infamous moments section, but it still must worded in a fair manner and placed in the proper context. Everyking 14:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read the original article from beginning to end, and then try to tell me that it reads like a reference piece:

"The foibles of live television were exposed in October 2004 when at the start of singer Ashlee Simpson's second musical performance of the show, a pre-recorded backing track for the wrong song was accidentally played. It turned out that Simpson's father, her manager, had decided to use vocal guide track because her voice had been weak in rehearsal due to acid reflux, a condition from which she was known to suffer. The vocal track was shut off but the musical track continued. Not knowing what to do, the band switched songs and, after a few awkward moments, Simpson walked off the stage. She subsequently apologized for the error during the show's closing—the incident served to highlight the always precarious nature of live television, as noted by the night's host, Jude Law. Coincidentally, a team of reporters from the CBS news program 60 Minutes led by Lesley Stahl had been taping and interviewing during the production cycle, and recorded both the rehearsals and the immediate reactions by Lorne Michaels and others. Michaels said that he had never been asked about using a vocal track, and would not have allowed it. Since then the production practices of SNL have been scrutinzed by reporters and Michaels has admitted that backing tracks are sometimes used..."

It doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry, it sounds like some extremely defensive Ashlee Simpson fan who's trying to stake a case against the public chastising her (not claiming that to be, but that's how it sounds to an outsider). I have a major pet peeve with many of the articles on this site (regarding controversial issues) where it's blatently obvious that someone (or possibly more) are trying to "sneak" in as many sentences they can in an atempt to sway opinion towards or against an issue, rather than telling it like it is, which is what an ENCYCLOPEDIA does. Just for the sake of argument, I asked several people around me to read this article for themselves (giving them no prior substance or resolution as to the content of the piece), just to be sure I wasn't being a total jerk about this, and every single person who read it agreed that it was an obvious attempt at editorializing, rather than documenting, the event. You may or may not realize it as often while writing, our own opinions will play on a totally subconsious level.

The second issue is that, while you may be correct in saying that this is the most newsworthy item in SNL in years, take a look at the paragraph describing - on what many would agree - is the most controversial moment in SNL history:

"...in a 1992 show hosted by Tim Robbins, musical guest Sinéad O'Connor, in anger, sang an a capella version of Bob Marley's song "War". At the end of that number, O'Connor tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II and shouted, "fight the real enemy". The telecast prompted over 3,000 telephone calls both to NBC and its affiliates."

Three sentences. The entries on moments like the Sinead O'Conner performance, or Charlie Rocket cursing on the air, for example, don't - or at least SHOULDN'T - attempt to go into great detail on things like "Who did, or didn't approve it," or "Who's ultimately responsible for it," (and if they do, they should also be edited). They should simply state the general WHOs, WHATs, WHEREs, WHENs and WHYs of an incident. Intricate details of the WHYs and HOWs belong only when it is sufficiantly RELEVANT to the subject at hand (in this case: The History of SNL).

The point is that minor details such as WHO made the decision, WHY it happend, HOW it happened, and WHO knew it was going to happen, and other things such as whether or not Simpson was known to have acid-reflux disease, are TOTALLY IRRELEVENT in an article about Saturday Night Live. It belongs in the ASHLEE SIMPSON article, and is perfectly suitable for such as the subject is about the person, and not the show. What if I were to go into Ashlee Simpson's article and write up a small history of SNL, just for the sake of setting up the proceeding story behind the controversy? It'd be deleted, because it's irrelevant and serves no knowledgeable purpose.

Wikipedia's slogan is "The Free Encyclopedia," not "The Free Newspaper/Magazine." Please don't misunderstand: This isn't a case for or against Ashlee Simpson. I personally could care less. It's a case for proper and concise documentation. --user:Bmb8609

Is anyone else getting as sick of this as I am? It's a shame that we can barely talk about the incident without "disturbing" certain people.

Length, Players and NPOV?

First, any recommendations on how to separate this article into several segments (maybe 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s)? It's far too big as it is. If we break it into an article per decade, we can have sections for each season (including the full cast lists) and detail some of the famous/infamous sketches for each decade.

Second, I'd like to see a description of the different type of players (featured players, contract players, etc).

Third, this article contains many aspects of the history of SNL including the backstage politics. Is stating that particular cast members were "hell to deal with backstage" appropriate? This seems like a very personal statement...

Jeff schiller 20:10, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

If you want to separate the article into segments that's fine. I agree the article is lengthy, but I prefer that to something that is mindless and tiny. I'm not really sure of how to seperate this into separate pages. Did you mean you wanted 2 or 3 different entries? I don't think that it's difficult to figure out the difference between featured and contract players, although I guess maybe one sentence could do the trick.

As for the "personal aspects" and "hell to deal with", all of this was detailed in 2 SNL books which contained many interviews with cast members of the 70's and 80's and 90's. Adam Sandler and Chris Farley's bad behavior isn't personal, it's the main reason they got fired. I can give links to the books that contain these statements, if you prefer that. --JamesB3 23:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JamesB3, Check out the History of Animation series for an example of an article that was eventually split up into several segments (yet still nitted together as a concise whole via linkage). That's what I'd like to see happening here. I was not suggesting to make it "mindless and tiny". Regards, Jeff schiller 17:53, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Camouflaged opinions

I think this article is doing that thing a lot of journalists do when they want to get their opinion across without seeming biased -- "some people think," "many viewers felt that," etc. In particular, the article applauds Norm McDonald and maligns Jimmy Fallon. I happen to disagree with these opinions, which is why they stand out to me.

The Fallon one is almost forgiveable (perhaps if it was softened up a bit), because it's put in context: the reader is made aware that this is the kind of humor that Lorne Michaels hoped to avoid. However, from reading the article, you'd think Norm McDonald was the best thing to ever happen to Weekend Update -- and no explanation is given for his firing. (Personally, I think the official reason -- that he isn't funny -- was dead on.) Are we to believe that the show fired its only good performer from the era, for no particular reason?

There were some other spots I found troubling too, all in the same category. There's just too many opinions about the values of performers in this article. Focus on flagging ratings or contemporary critical response if you want to show that a performer was or was not well-received.

Also, I wouldn't mind some elaboration on the backstage relationships of the different performers. For example, the article only briefly mentions the dispute between the late-80s female cast members, and no mention is given to the animosity the early casts felt towards Chevy Chase. --Malvolio80 14:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not as easy as you may think to comment on SNL solely from ratings or critical opinion. Most of the critical opinion of SNL over the past few decades has been "the show has sucked since the original players left." Clearly the story is more complex than that. As for ratings, again, many of the times that are most remembered by viewers came from an era when the ratings were acceptable but flat (the Eddie Murphy years).

When I first edited the article there were quite a few opinions instead of facts. I changed some of those around to try to make them balanced, to present both sides. Some fans think that Will Ferrell and Cheri Oteri saved the show -- others think they were a headache. The same goes for Jimmy Fallon. I think the McDonald section did point out why he was fired, and also that he was considered a highlight of the 94-95 season. You said that you wanted more opinions from critics -- according to the critics at that time, he was the only bright spot. Many fans felt the same way. I will look over the article again and see if changes should be made. I will also try to include more backstage stuff. That's what I wanted to do all along, but I was afraid most people wouldn't want to see those politics.

And for Jeff -- I wasn't saying you wanted to make the entry mindless and tiny, I was just pointing out that is an alternative to something which is considered too lengthy. I think that you should split up the article if you feel that's necessary. You seem to have more knowledge in this area than I do. I'm not sure if I can figure out how. I'll look over the information though. --JamesB3 21:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Let me know what you think. Regards, Jeff schiller 21:56, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Summarize the history as well, and avoid self-references. Everyking 22:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, jeff, it looks good. You should be proud of yourself. I may add a few backstage details or take out things that are too much opinion, I'll see. I think I've spent more time enjoying this entry than I have the last few years of SNL, LOL. --JamesB3 04:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, great job. I like the phrase "the noughties." BTW, I wouldn't mind a brief separate section on infamous mishaps on the show, like the Sinead O'Conner thing and the F-word thing and the recent Ashlee stuff. (And more minor ones I don't know about or remember.) I know those are spread throughout the decade links, but a little section for reference would be cool. Again, excellent work. --Malvolio80 21:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Episode 573

Can we get a year label on "episode 573" in infamous moments? Sure, hardcore fans may know what you're talking about when you rattle off episode 573, but I haven't a clue as to when it happened, especially because Jimmy Fallon caused me to stop watching SNL for about four years. Mike H 23:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

The incident is far from an infamous moment simply becaue it was not only noticed by a few people, but it aroused no controversy.--Yoni 01:34, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Can we delete the recurring section?

The front page is quite lengthy, but I think most of the content there is worthwhile, except the recurring characters section. A number of people on that list were not popular characters (Merv the Perv, for instance) and just because you are a recurring character does not mean you are popular. Some of the popular recurring characters are discussed in the history pages, and ultimately, each fan has their own idea of what "popular" is anyway, based on their own personal preferences.

Can I delete that section, or just take out all the names in favor of a link to a list of all the recurring characters over the years? I think snl.jt.org has one. --JamesB3 18:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I went through and deleted all the "RED" links from the recurring characters. if you ask me, if they don't have a page dedicated to a particular sketch, than that sketch probably isn't popular enough to be listed (even though some that were hardly popular do have their own page for some reason). You can delete the whole thing, for all I care, or link it to snl.jt.org, but it definately needed to be pruned for now. Takes up entirely too much space.user:bmb8609

(the above wasn't me; not sure who it was)

Since no one objected, I removed the recurring characters and just left the WU mention and a link to a page of recurring characters. I also trimmed the catchphrases area because while some of those moments were popular, they weren't catchphrases, things that you would hear everywhere. Norm Macdonald was popular with the fans but you really didn't hear a lot of national discussion about anal rape or what the Germans believe. And aside from those I left on the list, I don't remember any other Molly Shannon catchphrases.--JamesB3 11:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JonMoore, you ignored our points that many of the recurring characters listed were not very popular, and that it's redundant and takes up too much space. It is also a very broad definition of a catchphrase, since you can basically pull out anything and call it a catchphrase. I think that list needs to be trimmed down and after others have discussion on this, if none of them disagree with me, I am going to go back to the changes that you blacked out. I might just delete the recurring area altogether instead of including a link. Would that please you?--JamesB3 20:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the link, if it serves a purpose (in this case, keeping the page from being cluttered). It's not like the whole page is a list of links. Also, that above post was me. I forgot to sign my name...also any edits made by 207.192... are probably me as well (I usually don't sign in). I'm the one who put together that comprehensive list of all the WU anchors, and wrote summarys for each of the historical "eras" bmb8609

In response to JamesB3, I missed this section of the talk page, I'm sorry. I agree it takes up too much space, but deleting it entirely as you did is a little silly. I think breaking it out into a seperate page would be the best recourse. Something like "Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches". Would that be an acceptable compromise? Again, I apologize for missing this section; I thought you just randomly deleted these. [jon] 12:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the further clarification, Jon. I think that to keep both sides happy, creating a separate page would be the best idea. --JamesB3 14:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New stuff and possible split up

I've added external video links to every opening montage for each season (except 1977, which is the only season I don't have). I've also added a Season Breakdown for 2000-2005. Anyone else agree that the 90s section needs to be broken up into 1990-94 and 1995-96? It's incredibly too big,and the table of contents takes up half the page. Plus, given the cast and writers, they're virtually two completely different eras of the show that deserve their own seperate attention. Unless someone disagrees here, I'll get around to fixing this sometime this week. If anyone has any of the three opening montages from 77 season, let me know...bmb8609

Yes, I agree that the 90's should be split into 2 different sections. Thank you for adding the 00-05 season breakdown, I hadn't got around to it yet. BTW, I think you meant 'writers' and 'eras'. You didn't need the apostrophe. I make that mistake all the time too. --JamesB3 11:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK...fixed that error. I'll try and get that done tonight. Also, do we really need a page of hosts that have appeared as musical guests? I don't see why it's very noteworthy. It's not like you get a "prize" for it or something (i.e. The "Five Timers" club sketch). I'm going to remove it. user:bmb8609

UPDATE: The split up is finished. I now just need to go through each article and fix any continuity errors. Also the page titled "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SNL:1990-2000" (the 90s page before I split it) still exists, but is now completely blank. I have no idea how to delete the page so that it's no longer taking up space on the server, maybe someone else can check into that? Thanks

I applaud the work being done here on the "History of SNL" as it is remarkably detailed and highly informative. However, I must also point out that personal opinion runs amok throught the "history" articles, even in the short versions that are featured in the main article. A great example is "side-splittingly funny coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal." --Feitclub 22:04, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Saturday Night and the Rutles

Were these movies really based on SNL material? I don't remember any SNL content in Mr. Saturday Night, and the title alone is not a good enough reason for inclusion. --JamesB3 11:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Rutles made many appearences on SNL, but I don't know if they originate from SNL or Monty Python. I'd leave it in until we discover otherwise.

As for Mr. Saturday Night, it appeared in a sketch from Nov. of 1984 titled "Buddy Young Is Back" so yes, it is based on an SNL script, but via a distant relation. Much like how "mo' money" is based on SNL only because Damon Wayon's originated the phrase through a Weekend Update sketch. So the answer is that yes, they're technically an SNL spin-off, but neither Buddy Young, or Damon Wayans' characters were recurring. I guess it all just depends on how technical you want to get with it. bmb8609

Actually Buddy Young Jr. appeared four times (October 20, 1984; November 3, 1984; February 9, 1985; April 6, 1985), so he was recurring. Considering that Billy Crystal was only on the show for one season, I'd say a character that appeared four times was on pretty high-rotation.

Why was A Mighty Wind deleted from Movies Based On SNL sketches? The Folksmen appeared on SNL in 1984, and were the focus of that movie. Can I put it back?

Split?

Apparently this discussion page is at the 32K limit. Should it be split, or trimmed down? --JamesB3 22:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, that 32k limit is sort of outdated. I was told not to worry about it anymore, and I don't recall seeing it lately. Spalding 00:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Vague

It would be nice if a short explanation regarding some of the obscenities could be presented. Like, for example, with Charles Rocket: "I'd like to know who the fuck did it" Did what? Can this be placed into context? Same goes for Norm McDonald. I'd be really grateful if context could be given. Mike H 21:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point, and I think the reason it wasn't explained there, was because it's explained in further detail in the History: 1980-85 section. It could probably stand to be detailed a little more, but not too much since these parts are intended only to be "blurbs" for a lack of better terms. user:bmb8609

Eh, just a short context...copy and pasted from the history section, if need be, with a "See history of SNL 1980-1985 for more" or something like. Mike H 05:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Simpson matter again

Considering just about everyone here disagrees with his biased editing of this page, is there anyway to get people banned from editing here (considering he's contributed NOTHING to this page, other than making sure that we don't hold a person who otherwise has nothing to do with SNL accountable for lip-synching onstage)? For crying out loud, this had gone on long enough.

p.s. I cut the top half of this page off, since it was getting so big. feel free to add anything back if I cut off someting important.

Actually, I do keep an eye on the article in general and copyedit new additions periodically. And I'm not doing any biased editing. I just think that if we're going to mention it, we need a few words about her illness. It takes very little space and makes a world of difference in providing an objective account, even if it is just a brief summary. Everyking 18:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the other additions you make present the issue as Ashlee being a victim. She handled the situation terribly. If she'd simply started to sing her song, or attempted to, or, hell, just STAYED ON THE STAGE, instead of doing her goofy little dance and running off, this incident wouldn't be nearly as important. Instead, she showed a complete lack of professionalism by blaming it on 3 different things. It's one thing to bring up facts, it's another to distort them. Mo0[talk] 00:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Settle down folks.

First off, this is an article about SNL. So Simpson's motivations, illnesses, statements, etc, are secondary. Simpson did not play the backing track. Simpson's manager did not play the backing track. The SNL control room played the backing track. One version of the text insinuates that she was at fault for what was coming over the sound system. An important fact to mention is that it was widely reported/commented upon, unlike some of these other "infamous events".

I put in what I hoped would be a compromise version, and even edited to please Everyking. But he took it further and now we're going back in circles. For reference, here's my suggestion again.

In 2004, musical guest Ashlee Simpson walked offstage when a pre-recorded backing track for the wrong song was accidentally played. It appeared to viewers that Simpson had been lip synching, though the singer denied this, claiming illness. The incident received wide-spread coverage in the news.

Regardless, let's not lose any sleep over this. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's a great version of it. Mo0[talk] 01:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is short, simple and balanced. It's basically a condensed version of what was around on the other article for a while. The only thing that might be added, on reflection, is a mention of the skits that referred back to it. It is uncharacteristic of SNL to be self-referential. I'm trying to think up a way of saying all of that in a couple of words. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:16, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

However it's written, the essential things that neeed to be mentioned are: 1) she was the first person ever to walk off like this; 2) the problem was that the vocal tape for her first song was accidentally recued for her second number (we should make it clear exactly what happened); 3) a lot of people claimed she was lip-syncing, even though she claims she was going to sing along with the track (that needs to be spelled out, because a lot of people don't know what a 'backing track' is). 68.118.61.219 12:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning all of the facts involved with the situation. Everyking, when you read this, the only reason I object to your edits is that Ashlee was not a victim of anything but her own stupidity when she walked off of the stage. If she'd stayed on, she would have shown a lot more professionalism than that stupid little dance that she did. Mo0[talk] 13:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the facts in the matter, remember this is only a passing mention. The incident is handled in greater detail in the article on the current era of SNL. I'm not sure that Simpson walking off stage was the most newsworthy aspect of the incident. Do we have a source for her being the first performer to walk off? Or is she only the first musical guest to do so? If the latter, that's much less notable. Was it the first time the control room ever played the wrong backing track? Is that news? Regarding the backing track, I hope someone more familiar with the music industry than I will write an article on backing tracks (Everyking?). Cheers, -Willmcw 23:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Here it is again, with a provisional addition at the end:

In 2004, musical guest Ashlee Simpson walked offstage when a pre-recorded backing track for the wrong song was accidentally played. It appeared to viewers that Simpson had been lip synching, though the singer denied this, claiming illness. The incident marked the first time a performer had walked off stage on camera and was the subject of wide-spread coverage in the news.

Can we get any confirmation that it was the first time anyone walked off? Other than that, is there a consensus that this is an acceptable version? We ought to settle this and move on. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:08, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I dislike "claiming illness". There is very strong evidence that she was indeed sick, about as strong as the evidence could be, but this phrasing presents it like it's just some excuse. Everyking 03:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about "citing" instead of "claiming"? "It appeared to viewers that Simpson had been lip synching, though the singer denied this, citing illness." Is that fair? -Willmcw 03:34, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

That seems unclear. She says it was a backing track, so that should be mentioned. How about "it appeared to viewers that Simpson was lip synching or singing along with a backing track; apparently she was suffering from illness and was unable to sing live as usual"? Everyking 04:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Didn't she deny lip-synching? If there's no doubt that she was lipsynching then we should write the whole thing differently. The backing track was already mentioned in the first sentence, no need to repeat it. And why does the illness have to be "alleged" or "apparent"? Nobody has questioned that she might have something wrong with her. -Willmcw 04:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

She has denied lip synching per se (at least she did on the Today interview), but I would prefer to stress the alternative backing track explanation over that. Everyking 04:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And with that I am going to withdraw from editing the article except to copyedit and revert vandalism. I feel that I have caused stress and conflict on the article, regardless of whether I'm right, and so I need to do penance by withdrawing from it. Everyking 05:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK Everything, thanks for your input. Here's a version trying to better incorporate Everyking's input:

In 2004, musical guest Ashlee Simpson became the first performer to walk offstage when a pre-recorded backing track for the wrong song was accidentally played. It appeared to viewers that Simpson had been lip synching, though the singer later said she was using the backing track on account of a throat illness. The incident was the subject of wide-spread coverage in the news and even SNL skits.

It is longer than ideal for a stubby listing, but it is succinct and NPOV. Any objections? -Willmcw 06:33, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

what you have there is fine.

Cool! It's posted. Thanks everybody. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:12, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

1980-85 Summary

I've presented what I hope is a "compromise" to the ebersol era summary. I want Eddie Murphy in "Season Six" metioned first (before Ebersol) so that it remains in chronological order. (btw, "Show-Runner" is a widely-used, but unoffical term for an executive producer, I used it here to avoid literary redundancy since the phrase "executive producer" is used in the next sentence, but since it is technically unoffical, I have removed it as a compromise). I agree that the phrase "home-run" is silly and have since removed it, but since you bring it up, I would disagree that it's inaccaurate, as 1984 is a cited by many fans as a "classic" season. However, it IS objective, and so again, I have removed it. I also removed the "all-star" reference from the 1994 season, since this season was not truly an "all-star" season - at least not in the sense of the 84 or 85 seasons.

The 1984 season has a mixed reputation at best. Many complained and still complained that ebersol watered down the program by relying to heavily on pre-taped over live sketches, and by having people like Martin Short come in and rehash characters they had already been doing on other programs. And to say that Ebersol "finally" hit a home run with that suggests that it was considered better than the earlier seasons with Murphy at his height, which is doubtful. Whether or not you want to call them 'all-star' shows, 1994 followed the same practice of hiring established performers to fill out the vacant spots in the cast- there just weren't as many vacancies in 1994. The connection should be made because both times Michaels tried it, it was a disaster.68.118.61.219 18:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many who? Many leading TV critics? Many cast members? Many friends of yours? Wikipedia isn't for artistic criticism. What are the sources for your assertions? -Willmcw 05:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Dolly Parton picture caption

Does anyone know who the third person in this photo is? Image:Tv_snl_dolly_parton.jpg. The caption reads, "..w/ SNL's Victoria Jackson," but that only accounts for two people. (Gee, it almost looks like there are four or five people in there.) The one on the right resembles Carvey. If we can't name the other cast member, maybe we should at least acknowledge his or her presence. -Willmcw 09:12, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, and I don't really know why that pic is even there anymore. I think it referred to a section from way back when when the SNL pages was only one page long. In all reality, we ought to remove it, and maybe replaced it with something else (the page is running over 32K as it is right now anyway...)

UPDATE According to this page it's Jan Hooks...

-bmb8609

Awesome! Thanks for tracking that down. I'll correct the caption and move the picture to the History of SNL:1985-1990. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's Jan Hooks and the sketch was originally written in the late 70's for host Raquel Welch, but cut for time. ~Rodney Conley

Catch Phrases?

A lot of the so-called "catch phrases" only showed up in one sketch, as far as I'm aware:

* "I got a fever. And the only perscription is more cowbell!" (Christopher Walken)
* "Strategery" (Will Ferrell)
* "Lockbox" (Darrell Hammond)

Should we remove these, or possibly rename the section "memorable phrases" or something more appropriate? When I think of a catch phrase, I think of something that happened at least three times or more. Am I wrong here? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

More or less typical wikibloat. I'd posit that a "catchphrase" is one that "catches on" to some extent in the general public -- Emily Latella's "never mind" is clearly a catchphrase; dozens more are not, despite the best attempts by the SNL people to make them so by using them ad nauseum. The problem is, and will continue to be, that everybody's definition of "catchphrase" or even "memorable" is going to be different, and sooner or later we'll have every stupid line ever used on the show. This is the kind of thing, like the lists in Rock opera, that has me giving up on even trying -- it's like digging a hole in sand. (It's perhaps worth noting, also, that "stratergery" and "lockbox" are not only not catchphrases but they aren't even, technically, phrases). Jgm 00:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've felt the same way, and put in some notes regarding these additions that we're constantly having to remove. I put in some editing notes that roughly describe what constitutes a catch phrase, and how - on the characters section - we're not trying to make a list of EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER. These notes can only be seen when you're in "edit" mode, so they in no way, affect the asthetics of the page.

However, I must say that the three lines you've listed, although only heard once, do constitue as catch phrases since they are very popular in the public "pop culture" vernacular, and are used quite often. In fact, I recently read an article on the cowbell sketch, and how that phrase is 5 years strong.

FYI, I also made a note regarding the Ashlee Simpson moment, and requested to consult this forum before editing the long-awaited compromised version that is shown there

UPDATE: Just to cover any disagreement, I've changed the title to catch phrases/memorable quotes, and updated the Edit disclaimer.

--BMB8609

Shouldn't this section be more appropriate on Wikiquote:Saturday Night Live? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think they are memorable phrases and that they should stay there, because there's really no way some of these things could have been said a large number of times, they made a lasting impact the one time they were used and became memorable, so I think that, yeah, it should be memorable phrases. Could I just change that now, or should i talk to somebody first? Temp 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Infamous Beastie Boys appearance

I remember seeing an episode in which the Beastie Boys were the musical guests, and the lead singer dropped a couple F-bombs while singing. The song normally had profanity, but he added some more for good measure. I thought this would make a worthy addition to the infamous moments section, but I can't remember the date of the show. I know it was when they were performing "Sabotage", so mid 90's?

The episode that you are referring to is Alec Baldwin/Beastie Boys--12/10/94 from the 1994-95 season.

Opening credits

Any idea why the band isn't still credited in the opening credits? They were in older episodes. Deltabeignet 3 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's because the band is no longer "G.E. Smith and the Saturday Night Live Band." Smith left in 1995 but apparently came back in 99-2000 RasputinAXP 8 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Don't get this?

I was reading the SNL page when I came across this:

"On the August 17, 2005 episode of Late Night with Conan O'Brien (also aired on NBC), Conan mentioned hearing furniture being moved around in the studio upstairs. When Conan asked if it was a rival show, someone mentioned that it was Saturday Night Live. Conan responded, "Saturday Night Live? It'll never make it." Late Night with Conan O'Brien is filmed in Studio 6A, on floors 6 and 7 of "30 Rock"."

I don't quite get that quote. If someone could clear that up for me, it'd be appreciated.

OutRider2003 13:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, SNL is filmed in studio 8A, and Conan is filmed in 6A (but the studio takes up both the 6th and 7th floors), so SNL films directly above Conan. When SNL does their rehearsals, it can be heard muffled in Conan's studio. Conan's joke is both 1) that SNL is much more established than his own show and 2) he used to write for that show. It's pretty obscure though, I don't really think it's all that encyclopedic. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Beatles & "Saturday Night Live"

I don't recall the Beatles being mentioned in the article. See: http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/satnite.htm

Quoting from the start of the article:

"On April 24, 1976, "Saturday Night Live" producer Lorne Michaels made what would become a running gag on SNL with his offer of $3,000 to the Beatles to appear on the late-night comedy show...McCartney reported that he and Lennon briefly toyed with the idea of going down to the NBC studios and taking Michaels up on the offer."

Two small suggestions: The entry for Frank Zappa mentions "mugging the camera" and the following entry about Milton Berle mentions "mugging for the camera". The use of the word "mugging" in two completely different meanings so close together should be changed.

--Luis Fernandes

Notable tenures (Chris Parnell)

Does anyone think he belongs in that section? He started at the same time as Horatio Sanz, but he was fired and brought back after missing the first half of the 2001-2 season. So he has been on the show for 8 seasons, just not the entire time. --Scaryice 04:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

How much time exactly did he miss? If a half season, we could list him at 7.5 seasons and counting with a note about the missing half season. By January 2005, he will have completed eight seasons. However, I'm not sure there is an official standard for accruing time on SNL. Would this be different for Tina Fey, who is currently out on maternity leaved or Maya Rudolph, who will be going on maternity leave? Rillian 17:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is to leave him out. He was fired for at least half a season, if not close to an entire one (when you add up all the episodes he missed), AND, he is going to be on and off throughout most of this season to shoot his new sitcom (note he was not even credited in the opening montage for episode 2 or 3). --BMB

Stolen ideas section

This section is not very well written, and i'm not sure if it's deserving of its own section. Perhaps a criticism section in which this is mentioned? Themindset 04:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

(Trivia) Born After Premiere

Does the trivia snippet about Kenan Thompson being the only one born after October 11, 1975 have to be changed now that the new featured players have been added? I know Jason Sudeikis was born just weeks before, so that rules him out, but Andy Samberg looks pretty young. Does anyone know the birthdays of Samberg or Bill Hader?

I don't have them at this time. My opinion is to simply leave it as it is, until we find out otherwise. I doubt it will take long to get their birthdates if or when they become established cast members. --BMB

Family connections section?

"Time and time again" and "casting trend" are hardly justified by the few cases this new section cites. My suggestion is to put these details in the trivia section. Please comment if you disagree.

If someone's interested in exploring casting trends, write something on Harvard graduates or Chicago's improv theatre as sources of cast members and writers. 66.167.253.60 01:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

Infamous Moments?

I personally think that the "Infamous Moments" section is growing too big and many of the listings in there are hardly infamous. First off, I think any instance of a singer singing a cuss word during a musical number shouldn't be listed. This happens often (I could list about 10 instances off the top of my head), and may make some small articles in the AP but other than that, it doesn't cause major controversy. This includes the System of a Down reference. I'm still trying to figure out how this was infamous. It made a few newspaper articles in some back pages, but it hardly caused any kind of uproar on the level of Sinead O'Connor, Charles Rocket or even something generally memorable like Elvis Costello's 1977 performance. Also I think backstage situations should not be included. Such as the fistfight between Murray and Chevy (not there anymore since I removed it). These didn't happen on air, so I don't think they can really be considered "infamous" or memorable since no one but those who were there witnessed them first-hand. Finally, some of the instances run too long, and go into too much detail. They either need to be cut down to bare bones facts and straight-to-the-point, or removed entirely. 207.192.206.107 07:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)--BMB

Perhaps they should be given their own articles?

What happened to the RATM one? now that was real censorship right there, by a supposedly "cutting edge" show. Xunflash 06:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

International Rights

In the "Rights To SNL" section it says: "Due to international licensing restrictions, Saturday Night Live cannot be seen outside North America, with one exception: Sony Entertainment Television (in Latin America)." SNL is shown in Australia on cable channel Arena TV on the Foxtel cable platform. So maybe this is incorrect/outdated.

-- It is also broadcast on the Armed Forces Network; over the air in South Korea.

The Rutles

I have removed "The Rutles" from the film section, incidentally the film was called All You Need is Cash. The Rutles were created by Eric Idle and Neil Innes for the British show Rutland Weekend Television, the only sketches to appear on SNL were reruns from RWTV shown when Eric Idle appeared on SNL. I acknowledge the fact that it was the SNL appearance that led to the film, and that an SNL producer directed it. However, I really do not think that The Rutles should be mentioned next to the other films, which all came from original SNL sketches. Rje 01:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

another infamous episode

In an episode hosted by Tony Danza, there was a sketch where he and others kept using the phrase "funkin'" in place of "fuckin'." (I dropped the funkin' pizza, etc.) There was a big media uproar afterwards, I remember complaints to the FCC, talk of firings or disciplining the staff, possibly even politicians complaining. Anyone have more on this that could be added?

Salary

It states that the starting salary for an SNL cast member is US$5000. This is not correct (what is that, like one month's rent in Manhattan?). Does anybody know the real figure? Is it $50k? ColinKennedy 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's almost correct depending on who and the contract, but it's not a month, it is an episode.

Brody

There is an entry in banned hosts saying on the May 10, 2003 SNL, Adrian Brody came out dressed rastafarian and introduced the host incorrectly etc. Well, I'm watching the rerun of that exact episode right now and none of that happens. In fact, it is the day before mother's day and his whole opening monologue is done with his mother (he is quite normal and dressed in a suit). Sean Paul is the musical guest, but he introduces him just fine. Can whoever put that in there clarify if they have the right incident? Maybe there is an explanation. Thanks Superclear 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the episode was edited for syndication? In any case, the article refers to an introduction of Sean Paul and not during the monologue. There are generally two appearances by the musical guest. There could be one introduction by Adrian that was normal and the second one was the one in Rastafarian garb. Here are some comments from a review of the episode at http://www.saturday-night-live.com/snl/reviews/02-03/brody/bob-b.html "Thoughts- Adrian Brody's introduction was some funny stuff but ran a bit too long. It got a great response in dress though." Here's more from IMDB "Adrien hosted Saturday Night Live on 10 May 2003 and came out in full Rastafarian attire to introduce the night's musical guest Sean Paul. Speaking in a Jamaican accent, he carried on for a full minute before finally bringing on Paul. While the skit was funny, Brody did not obtain clearance to perform such a scene." Rillian 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a note from Brody's bio on All American Speakers - "Brody appeared on Saturday Night Live on May 10, 2003, his first TV work, but he was banned from the show after giving an improvised, yet funny, introduction for musical guest Sean Paul (The show's producer, Lorne Michaels, is infamous for hating unscripted performances)." However, I haven't found a contempory source yet. Could this all be an urban legend? Rillian 18:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's marked down on the TV.com's episode summary. [1] -- Viewdrix January 20, 3005

Removed Incorrect Info

To whoever noted that a 2005 show contained the 'only time in the show's history' that the entire cast said LFNY, that's incorrect. The entire cast of SNL '80 said it in unison on their final show, the Bill Murray episode.

Actually, it was not the entire cast in that 1981 episode, just several members of the cast. Also: the whole cast did not say it in 2005; Maya Rudolph, who was on leave, and Darrell Hammond didn't. There was another episode (Steve Martin, 1991, with the famous "Tonight Song" cold opening) where most, but not all, of the cast said LFNY. These can all be verified at SNL Archives (snl.jt.org). Has the *entire* cast ever said it? (Just curious.) Ab85 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"the program introduced a very attempted logo"?

What the hell does that mean? --Closedmouth 05:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Banned Guests

What are your sources for the banned guests? I can't find any evidence that guests are banned from SNL, they are just not invited back. I think the section titled "Banned Guests" should be removed or edited to note that there is no evidence that guests are ever banned from SNL. (128.113.146.178 18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

If they're not to be invited back, that's basically a ban, is it not? To get on the show, you have to be invited, and if they're not to ever be invited again, by extension, that's banning them from the show. Besides, try looking at every other source of information on Saturday Night Live, including tv.com and IMDB. Plenty of information about bannings. It's not as if Lorne Michaels goes to media outlets all the time and talks about "so-and-so is banned". It's just that "banned" is a much easier way to say "Lorne Michaels shall not be asking this person to return to the show". Don't get pissed and try to get rid of a section because you were wrong to try and add Prince to the banned list and people reverted your edits. -- Viewdrix February 5th, 2006

How about Fine Young Cannibals? It's been 17 years since they performed, are they banned? The truth of the matter is that your definition of banning is weak and not founded in fact. IMDB and tv.com are hardly reliable sources to be using, and other than that you completely sidestepped my question. If you have no sources, how can you consider these bannings fact? Do you have some sort of inside information that the rest of the world doesn't have? The only decent argument you have is with Andy Kaufman, and that is only because it happened on the show and is incontrovertible. However, that is no excuse for the rest of the section, which is speculation at best. (128.113.146.178 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

I didn't think you'd have an answer to that. Go ahead with living in your plastic bubble, I suppose. (128.113.146.178 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

I missed the alert because someone else edited this page between the time you added your reply and I came online. The truth of the matter is that I answered the only question you posed: "What are your sources?", and saying I sidestepped is a total lie. And what does the fact that Fine Young Cannibals performed 17 years ago have to do with anything? Not only that, but you completely failed to acknowledge that you tried to add to the list of banned guests, and that after your edit was reverted, you seemed to take this stance of anti-"banned" pretty quickly. You had no sources yourself in your addition of the Prince information, so saying that IMDB and tv.com, more sources than you ever had, aren't reliable is incredibly ironic. Why don't you just accept that your edit was wrong, that previous guests have actually confirmed they've been banned from the show, in addition to which Lorne Michaels has not denied that guests have been banned, but would naturally not talk at length and detail about it, and move on? Why don't you do that instead of try to come up with completely unrelated "evidence", such as the implication that if banning existed, surely Fine Young Cannibals would be allowed to perform after 17 years. Am I Lorne Michaels? No. Do I know about the intricate policies of a banning? No. I just know that there have been bannings, and they havn't returned to the show. Stop being immature and get over it. -- Viewdrix 10 February 2006

Times Square?

The box says mentions that NBC's studios are in Times Square, but I'm pretty sure that they're in Rockefeller Center, including those studios in which SNL is shot. Can anyone confirm? dsemaya 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Rockefeller. Viewdrix 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

new york stub

does it really belong here?

Infobox Caption

I have moved the infobox caption for the photograph of the title card to the image's page. It was far too long to work as an infobox caption. If anyone has a more appropriate caption, feel free to edit it again.

WikiProject?

Hey guys. I proposed a WikiProject for SNL. It is my first proposed WP, so please tell me if I did anything wrong or if it was an inappropriate request. If you think it is a good idea, go here and sign your name to the list. I hope it works out. Lbr123 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Chris Farly & Phil Hartman deaths?

I was wondering if any mention was made about Farley or Hartman after they died on SNL? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.102.34 (talk • contribs) .

I am fairly certain that they did a "best of" episodes for the two former cast members. --Asbl 22:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I think a section on criticism would be interesting. I know that Bob Odenkirk has had much to say, such as in this Suicide Girls interview: "No I think I would have developed more interesting and in a healthier way in my life if I hadn’t done it. But what are you going to do? You aren’t going to say no to that job."

http://suicidegirls.com/words/Bob+Odenkirk/ Benbenbenben

I think I will add a criticism section. There seems to be much that can be said.

As a new contributor I have much to learn, so don't bite me, rather guide. Fact, not all knowledge is published. Thus, reportable events must be an acceptable source for the Wikipedia. A "Point of View" that is neutrally based on Observable Facts of Occurence must have a place. Otherwise, diversity is lost. 71.42.44.49 23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast

On the main SNL page, it says Horatio Sanz and Chris Parnell are presently in the cast, but on the 2005-present page, under "2006-2007," neither of them are included, but Maya Rudolph is. Which is it? Macarion 05:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's people making guesses. So far, Fey's scheduled to leave the sketch cast but return for Weekend Updates, so she stays, and Rachel Dratch is so likely to leave because of 30 Rock that she should be being left off. Otherwise, nothing's official, so the cast lists should stay the same until someone's officially added or dropped. -- Viewdrix 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Official [[2]] Koolgiy 05:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Chevy Chase Banning / Stick Around

There's nothing that makes me more anxious than seeing a Wiki fact without further explanation. This article says that Chevy Chase was banned from hosting again in 1997. I would love to see that explanation.

Also, I am not going to make this note myself because I have not done my research - but I don't believe I have EVER seen a monologue that didn't end with the phrase, "(So) Stick around, we'll be right back." To me, it seems a defining tradition of SNL. Does anyone know anything about that? --Spesek 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Bacon's monologue in 1991. He said "don't go away, we'll be right back".

There are more, but I saw one a couple days ago with Kate Hudson or something and she just said "so stick around." Macarion 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gary Weis short films & Skred

I'm surprised to see nothing about the short films by Gary Weis from the first few years. Those were a prominent feature in the early days, and it was the only place you'd see such pieces pre-Night Flight/Liquid TV. The twisted little world of Skred the muppet was another early fave.

I came looking for info on these, so I can't really start a section for them. But a Short Films & Features section would be very useful. It could also include stuff like the Eric Idle directed video of the George Harrison song Crackerbox Palace, which debuted on SNL. Laszlo Panaflex 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Will Ferrell

I believe Will Ferrell should be added to the list of "notable tenures". He was on the cast for seven years (1995-2002), which the paragraph above states "few have broken the seven year barrier." Dtemp 15:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Molly Shannon is coming back?

Source? --Macarion 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hosts who auditioned(or were offered a part)

I really think this category should be broken down into two seperate categories. Why are guest hosts mixed in with people who auditioned and turned down?

Rerun editing

I added a note about the earlier encore showings sometimes including sketches from other episodes. Two examples are the Rod Stewart and Lauren Hutton reruns; both had non-show specific (ie no host/musical guest appearance) sketches edited into them from the Donald Pleasance show. My research found that Pleasance never re-aired on NBC.

74.115.226.191 09:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

anyone able to help

I keep seeing a caption that says recorded from an earlier live broadcast. does that just mean that it is a rerun or does it mean something else? Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends. The text appears on every rerun now but if you're watching Classic SNL and you see the modern disclaimer (one very non-intrusive line) during a pre-1996 montage and you don't see the older versions with "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" mentioned by name in big block letters, it's probably the original live episode reairing. The other ways you can tell if it's a rerun edit are listening to the bumpers in the post-1985 episodes (as a rule they are silent in live broadcasts, and the band fanfare in the reruns), or listening to the closing theme in older episodes (sometimes they used a canned recording of the closing theme to get rid of Pardo's voiceover announcing the next show). 74.115.226.191 06:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If your watching it on the normal 11:30 time slot, and it looks like a newer show (in widescreen) then yes its a repeat. Most likely becasue their on break. Koolgiy 05:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Louise, Two-headed housewife

Hiya, I'm trying to properly a cite a character in another article about Terry and Linda Jamison. According to their information, they were performance artists who created a "recurring character" on SNL (possibly just an SNL film), known as "Louise, the two-headed housewife." Does anyone here have more information about this, such as which episode(s) the character appeared in? Thanks. --Elonka 18:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Always Don Pardo!

"The opening credits are voiced-over by long-time NBC announcer Don Pardo." -On 8/26/06, NBC reran the October 3rd, 1981 episode (where James Kaan backed out has host), and I discovered that the opnening credits WERE NOT DELIVERED BY DON PARDO. I don't know who it was but it sounded like the guy who used to voice the credits for Letterman when he was on NBC.

Mel Brandt, as noted in the 1981-82 season summary. Lambertman 02:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been many times recently when Pardo hasn't been avaialable for the live telecast. Darrell Hammond fills in with his best Pardo impersonation.

Has SNL ever been live in the summer?

Does anybody know when the seasons begin (and end) in terms of production/filming? Although minor animated sequences might have been produced in the summer, it doesn't seem that they ever cast a live host in the summer.

So far as I can remember, SNL has almost always been reruns in the summer.

Am I right?

What's your point? --Macarion 02:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read message at top of page "Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.". - Mike Beckham 03:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike Beckham: Please follow link at top of page regarding new users. No need for everyone to freak out, the message was clearly started with a question which can be answered and perhaps added to the article.

All I can contribute is that the first episode usually airs in the last week of September or first week of October. - Tyler 02:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Current cast having dates attached.

Is it really necessary? I wouldn't mind keeping their starting years, as it seems the dash to nothing is redundant when you're listing a current cast member. However, leaving just the starting year date may be confusing without the dash adding the context of, eg. "1996 to". Can we just list the names, that's it? -- Viewdrix 19:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How many episodes survive?

How many of the 604 episodes survive today?

Edited Charles Rocket section in "SNL Curse"

Removed part about him being member of "much-maligned 1980-1981 season", as it does not fit the tone suitable for an encyclopedia article (i.e. it seems to suggest people are waiting for all the members of that cast to do so. And even if they ARE, that's immaterial).-Jkazoo 01:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone tried re-wording this and re-inserting this, but I'm removing it again. It really is immaterial. We don't say "John Belushi was the 1st 1st Season Member to die" or "Chris Farley was the 1st cast member who joined in such-and-such season to die" and so on so on. As I said before, it reeks of a "I want every single member of that season to die" vibe, and like I said, even if that's so, it's not encyclopedic. -Jkazoo 08:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

GA NOMINATION ON HOLD

Not nearly enough references, and the History section could contain more than simply links to other articles. -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

These are major issues, and such the GA must fail rather than be put on hold.

There's a further issue in that the article doesn't seem able to decide if it's prose or a list. It needs structural improvement. --kingboyk 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Live Start Time

It said that the shows live start time was 11:35 PM Et. (With some markets delaying) It really goes live at 11:30PM Et. with some markets delaying so I changed it.

For all of you Saturday Night Live fans

I have an idea to make it better, because it's beginning to suck. They should restore it back to classic, like from 1990-1995ish. Here's my idea of the perfect cast (if they can get some of these people to come), and this is nothing against women (there's like 2 women), I'm just picking out the perfect mix:

Darrell Hammond, Will Forte, Fred Armisen, Jason Sudeikis, Horatio Sanz, Kenan Thompson, Amy Poehler, Will Ferell, Adam Sandler, Rachel Dratch, Kristen Wiig, Jimmy Fallon, Tim Meadows, Jack Black

Anyway, here's my opinion on it now: Last season the writing sucked and the writers couldn't make a skit have a satisfying ending, it was usually some stupid ending. Seth Meyers was the best writer on there, and now that he's the main one, the skits are a little better. Now, about 1/2 make me laugh, 1/8 are okay, and 3/8 make me want to vomit. The cast is pretty good, though, actually better than last year. Weekend Update's pretty good, and I think Seth is a good addition, but he could do better. And usually Amy's bits are funny and his are drawn out and dry and stupid, which is weird. I love Kenan, Will, and Jason, and I think anything with Will Forte in it is hilarious and anything with Kenan is generally pretty funny (depending on if he's the star or not). Anyway, please feel free to debate me on this. Temp

Wikipedia is not for discussing like a forum. -- Viewdrix 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The people at the ref desk told me to put it here. Temp

Way to welcome a newcomer to WP, Viewdrix...NOT. Since you're into rules maybe you should look at this one: Please don't bite the newcomers (Temp, a suggestion: to add your username and the date/time of your contribution on the Talk page of any WP article, follow it with four tildes (~).) -- Jalabi99 21:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jalabi, I was pretty sure that this was something you could post here. The bite marks will heal soon :) Temp 19:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

SNL films from sketches section

I noticed that the two Blues Brothers movies were included and took them out seeing that the criteria for this section is supposed to be films that originated as SNL sketches. The Blues Brothers were never a "sketch" - they originated in part based on a sketch (singing "I'm A King Bee" while still dressed in bee costumes from a Killer Bee sketch), but mostly they began as an outgrowth of Belushi's music hobbies and their first appearances on the show were actually helping to warm up the audience (documented in Hill and Wiengrad's book). In this regard they are more of a musical act than a sketch performance. RoyBatty42 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, as long as the section titled "Films based on SNL sketches" and not "Every single F-ing thing someone connected to SNL" has done, then it should stick to that criteria. I also would like to suggest that it might be retitled to reflect that BOB ROBERTS and OFFICE SPACE were not sketches, but short films done by outside talent not part of the SNL staff. RoyBatty42 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SNL Curse

As it clearly does not fit the definition of a theory, I edited the word out and replaced it with "superstition." RichieGB 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

nonlive?

One trivia bit discusses "The non-live opening..." - to what does this refer? As far as I was aware, even the cold-open is live, is it not? The trivia talks about episodes that don't say "live from new york, it's saturday night". I suggest that this entire trivia note be killed anyway - there have been many instances I've seen in which the phrase is slightly modified, such as when Hammond's Schwarzenegger says it, etc. TheHYPO 19:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

When It's Not Live

"Encore showings are not always identical to the original broadcast. Frequently, successful sketches that aired later in the show during the original broadcast will be reedited to appear earlier, and segments that did not work well during the original showing are replaced by a) alternate performances or b) completely different sketches that had been taped at the dress rehearsal that preceded the live broadcast. In the earlier years of the show's history, reruns occasionally replaced weaker sketches with segments from other episodes, usually from episodes that did not have an encore showing at all."

Are there any specific references for this? --David Bixenspan 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Every Saturday

The opening to the article states that SNL has been broadcast "nearly every Saturday night since its debut on October 11, 1975". This is both vague and innacruate. I am changing it. --Lakeshark 09:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

There is nothing in this article about how the show is doing in terms of the number of viewers. --theDemonHog 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a timeline with players

I was disappointed to see there was no timeline with matching players. I'm very interested in knowing how many seasons Eddie Murphy overlapped with Martin Short and Billy Crystal -- or did they?

It would be nice to see the evolution of casting.

Hope someone has the info

144.59.12.138 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Pimju9

Format

I think the show's format should be outlined in more detail before anything else. I'm a UK resident and I've never watched the show. Reading this article is made practically impossible by the use of jargon- Notable tenures? 'Best Ofs'? Repertory Players? I'm left completely in the dark. Even if these terms aren't unique to the show, they should be linked to articles explaining them.

Sound Glitches

What about something on tech based problems during the live shows(like the sound glitch during AFI this past weekend)?

(LadySatine 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

What are the host pictures (in the sketch intervals) called?

I'm reallly into them everytime I watch snl. What are those called? and where can I find high quality pictures of them? http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7031/06jhost4xk7.jpg http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3520/05phost4oe5.jpg I think these should be mentioned in the article, since they have been part of snl for a long time, and certainly have interesting part in the overall show.

Numbers of times a word is said in a single sketch?

There is notes for the number of times "Cheeseburger" and "Penis" are said in those infamous sketches, but does anyone know the number of times the word "Ma!" is said in the amusement park sketch from the May 2006 Tom Hanks episode? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.13.22 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Not exactly a recurring character

One sketch style I enjoy is when the cameras go "backstage", either during the opening monologue or in some other set piece that takes place off the SNL stage and in the office/control room areas. Part of the reason is due to the fact that there is always the following characters wandering around the SNL area waiting for their upcoming sketch: a Las Vegas showgirl and Abraham Lincoln. Can't explain why, but it always makes me chuckle. This week there was also Jesus; other weeks have had other regularly-seen hanging-out backstage characters. Assuming we can write an appropriate blurb about how Abe Lincoln is always getting his sketch cut from the show, where would something like this go (other than in the Trivia section)? SpikeJones 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Office Space

This movie was based on a recurring cartoon from the 1993-1994 season of SNL, so why does it keep getting deleted from the film section? Anthony Rupert 11:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live show in UK

I remember in the summer of 1996 a show in the UK called Saturday Night Live was shown on our ITV channel. It was possibly based on the US show's format, I'm not sure. Comedian Harry Hill started out on this show, amongst others. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about ? 81.145.241.151 02:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)