MovieChat Forums > Saturday Night Live (1975) Discussion > Thoughts whether SNL should call it quit...

Thoughts whether SNL should call it quits at 50?


Lorne will very likely retire since he's approaching 80. I've always thought someone like Tina Fey could take over the helm. Kenan remarked recently that after Lorne they might cut the budget, much like what they did when Lorne left in 1980(he came back in 1985). Right now late comedy is pretty lame, so much politics/wokeness..there's a dearth of comedy as people are very unwilling to take risks.

Maybe it's best for SNL to leave and make way for something new?

reply

Yes, definitely. Show has way overstayed it's welcome.

reply

It's not funny anymore...and social politics today does not work in favor of this show.

reply

Should have called it quits in the 80s.

reply

There's nothing like SNL. It's an institution.....as well as a late Saturday tradition. It was there when you were a kid, and you weren't allowed to watch it (so you sneak watched it). It was there during your high school years. It was there in the background during college parties. And it's there when you get home from the bar and need to wind down.

Once it's gone, there will never be anything like it again, especially in terms of the history and the legends that have graced that little late night, NY City theater. It just needs an influx of energy, while also respecting many of the elements Lorne has in place that work so well (like Weekend Update).

Tina Fey would be a brilliant showrunner when Lorne is ready to pass the baton.
I would hate to see SNL go away. The live, "hit and miss" nature of it is simply the nature of live, sketch comedy.
That's part of what makes it special.


reply

I agree that it was very special, there definitely some heyday's like 76-80, 86-92, 08-14..but those years under Doumanian and Ebersol were pretty bad, Eddie Murphy notwithstanding. All of late night TV sucks nowadays, which really should be impossible. American quality of life is also pretty bad as well, with dead end jobs, wage theft, morbid obesity, etc.

I just think something new in comedy needs to come along..something that can jolt American's out of their depressing slumber. As it stands right now, SNL is NOT up to this hurculean task.

reply

Always thought MadTV was much better and had more talented people.

reply

Man I wish MadTV was still on, it's badly needed right now. I remember when a few key cast members left SNL around 2013/2014, it immediately went downhill. Instead of just of a couple of down years its never recovered. I could complain all day long but it's blatantly obvious to any hardcore SNL fan.

reply

I thought this even when I was a kid. But SNL was just "bigger" and more high budget-feeling.

reply

I've read articles over the years that stated the show isn't very lucrative. And all that stuff with it just being a tool for the network to control Saturday nights against local affiliates back in the day, which isn't even a necessary thing anymore in the modern streaming era. The leaky ship of SNL mainly stays afloat because of Lorne's will. Now it's mainly a political blowhorn and really it's a question on if they want to keep that tool in their toolbox or not. I don't think much has changed though. Most markets will get more revenue for showing reruns of Walker Texas Ranger than SNL. If I were them i'd retire "classy" and maybe restructure the show for Peacock.

reply

You're probably right, there has to be huge production costs for just a weekly show. Other late night shows air 5 nights a week which allows them to get more airtime, more sponsors = more ways to make money.

The few things I know about SNL's profitability are 1. The first 5 years(75-80) had by far the highest ratings in the history of the show. NBC had BOTH Johnny Carson and SNL and had an absolute monopoly on late night. After Lorne left in 1980 the ratings have NEVER fully recovered. 2. Former SNL music director G.E. Smith commented that SNL started to become more profitable once Lorne came back and turned the show around(late 80's/early 90's. He said that once NBC got a new owner the new corporate heads started bean counting and made a lot of changes around 1995. Since G.E. Smith was making a really good salary he said they fixed that by simply firing him. 3. Occasionally over the last 50 years NBC has shown old or new SNL reruns in prime time. This obviously was due to a weak prime-time lineup and showing SNL reruns is basically free.

reply

Oh, bummer! I didn't know that was why GE left the show. The other value that SNL brings to the table, which doesn't seem to be much of an effective thing anymore, is the farming of new comedic talent to anchor tv shows and be movie stars. This is again another arm of the Lorne Michaels empire. Without him around, i don't see this being of importance to said bean counters. That being take a loss now to have greater gains in the future. There's a ten or twenty year turnaround on that. That's just not how the world works anymore. There's no longer time to train the public to like personalities. Too many nutters with built in followers you can just pull right off tiktok and slap in the limelight.

reply

You're right about everything you say..however I don't know of many SNL cast members that became really huge movie stars except Chevy, Eddie Murphy, and maybe Will Farrell. Belushi had Animal House but his movies after that were pretty awful. Of course you're right that many ex SNL castmembers go on to success on other TV shows, which is truly their style.

Ya know, I'm really concerned about the state of comedy right now. A lot of the stalwarts are dead, retired or canx. Dennis Miller was really funny for over 30 years, he's admitted he quit I think 9/11 really affected him more than the documented stuff we know. Our society is really hurting right now and it's hurting even more without comedy, especially parody. Comedians in Concerts Getting Cancelled lol.

reply

Adam Sandler and Mike Meyers were pretty huge. They produced several "ok" stars that had a fair amount of movies like David Spade, Chris Farley, Tina Fey, jason Sudakeis... but those are still actors over a decade gone. No real non SNL success in a long time really, with Kate Mckinnon bring kind of an exception.

reply

Deuce Bigalowe does not appreciate the disrespect...

also Norm MacDonald and Tim Meadows.

reply

I forgot about Rob,
he did quite a few movies .Tim and Norm definitely weren't big names like the others, but did have semi steady work in small roles.

reply

When CBS were looking a replacement for David Letterman. I remember reading Norm MacDonald was interested hosting the gig. MacDonald admitted he wasn't a great comic actor, and felt hosting a late night show medium were more closer to his comic strengths. Its for this reason why Macdonald's film career never really took off. Billy Madison his role you could phone it through, and Dirty Work don't even get me started on that awful film. Norm MacDonald RIP.

reply

I guess nostalgia has always been a losing fight. (Heck, I still visit whatever record store I can still find....just to thumb through the vinyl like I did as a kid).

Another thing I really like about SNL (as has been alluded to by others in this thread) is how it has at times been Lorne's lone battle against The Man....against a soulless committee of bean counters and corporate interests. Is there ANYTHING else out there like this scenario, where a guy like Lorne (kind of a hippie rebel) can....through sheer will and proof of concept, keep a show not only afloat this long, but also keep his hands on the creative reigns (and corporate interlopers at bay). How he attained this power is both baffling (and cool). It's a great David and Goliath story, which you NEVER see anymore.

You'd never see one guy with a creative vision get a (Live!) show on the air....and start to make 11:30 timeslot a "primetime" event. He had a vision, proved it out...created an audience and continued to fight for the integrity of it all. All this....with a product that is not only live, but entirely unpredictable. To a MUCH smaller degree, I suppose Jon Stewart did something pretty daring in his own right.

Certainly it was good timing (the zeitgeist of the 70's, no streaming and very little to compete with)....plus, just a different overall climate regarding attitudes, entertainment, attention spans, what was acceptable (vs, Taboo), etc.

I'd just love to see Lorne's legacy remain alive (in the right hands, of course). The formula can still work.

reply

Great points, Lorne is certainly a one off. From what I've read he directed Saturday Night Live when he was a teenager at summer camp. Even before SNL started he came to the U.S. from Canada(wherever that is) and got to know all the popular comics. They would come to his house late at night..and Lorne always accommodated them and it was well known that Lorne never woke up before noon, it took a begging from his manager to even have Lorne show up for the SNL pitch meeting with NBC! And after Lorne left SNL in 1980 he failed miserably, he went broke trying to produce his own comedy show, which failed miserably. With no money he decided he'd give SNL a try again. After one bad year he quickly turned it around. What a MF'ing talent!

reply

SNL should have been reduced to a one-hour show over 15 years ago. They have continued to beat jokes to death for decades, to drag out the time. It has not been funny for a long time. So they substitute leftist politics instead, driving off half of their potential audience.

If I tune in for part of a show, once per season, it is always this way, a waste of time. They should cut the cast in half, as well as reducing it to one hour.

The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson was reduced from 90 minutes to one hour. It improved that show with better focus.

reply

Maybe not a bad idea now, back 15 years ago SNL was really very good, it only completely collapsed around 2014. Historically, SNL has seen a big dropoff in viewership after Weekend Update so yes your point(s) do have some validity. I know recently Keenan Thompson said it might not be a bad idea to end SNL after Lorne retires because there's a good chance(actually, almost a certainty) that NBC would severely cut the budget of the show. So, Lorne retires as SNL 50, Tina Fey or someone else familiar with the show takes over, the budget cut to accommodate a one hour SNL. It would be cool if NBC then filled in the missing half hour with a new comedy show that takes chances again.

reply

No, I don't think it should. SNL goes up and down. The last time I really liked it was the Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Fred Armisen cast. I don't care for the current cast. But that could change. It really is an up and down show. What I think should be done is Lorne Michaels' passing the torch. I agree with the OP - Tina Fey is a great idea to take over.

reply

Right. It wasn’t that long ago that SNL gave us stuff like the Lonely Island skits with Andy Samberg. “Captain Jack Sparrow”, “D—k in a Box”, “I’m on a Boat”, etc.

Those bits rank right up there with the very best from the past. And let’s face it, they are WAY better than stuff like Bass-O-Mattic, Baba Wawa, The Church Lady, Pat, etc.

As you say, the show has always been unpredictably hit and miss….and that has always been part of its charm.

If SNL goes away, so does (yet another) chunk of our youth.

reply

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT I would not use the word "charm" nothing's charming about the down cycles. But it IS exciting when there's a new group that really clicks.

reply

I took another look at this thread, and I agree with what I said a year ago. First of all, it is true, SNL goes up and down. For me, a huge part of whether I'm into the show or not is the cast. I caught a few episodes of this years cast and I'm sorry to say - I don't care for any of them. I don't find any of them particularly funny. Like I said previously, for me, I have to go back to the Kristen Wiig cast to be in a time period that I really enjoyed SNL. But the thing is, I believe anyway, you can't count SNL out. Its gone up and down since it started in 1975. Is it time to pack it in? No, I say keep going. However, it is more than time for Lorne Michaels to retire. Bring Tina Fey in. The show seems tired - I believe a lot of the reason why is you've got a guy around 80 years old making all the calls. You need a younger, funnier, smarter person. I think Tina would be just right.

reply

SNL has been dead for decades, but since they're only three seasons from hitting fifty years, they might as well go for it.

reply

Mixed. I feel like everything has to end, and at this point, you want it to go out on a significant number. However, this show has always adapted with the times, while maintaining its template. Its fluid with its change of cast members. Whenever Lorne leaves, it could still adapt with a change in producer. It could of course go wonderfully or terribly all depending on who took the reigns. And I ask not in a snotty way at all, or even rhetorically: What would you suggest NBC put in the time slot? Because it's such an institution, as someone else has already said, it's hard to think of anything else doing remotely as well. And it still gets attention after this long, it's still of significance. Canceling SNL would be like canceling the news in a way.

reply

Right.
If 60 Minutes can go on in perpetuity, why can’t SNL?

SNL should always be there.
Losing the Charlie Brown Christmas Special was traumatic enough.

reply