Skip to comments.Saturday Night Live Cold Opening: Town Hall Debate
Posted on 10/21/2012 8:03:51 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
Saturday Night Live Cold Opening: Town Hall Debate
(Excerpt) Read more at hulu.com ...
I thought it was absolutely hilarious!
I’m not worried about it because I have no doubt Romney will win. Also, Conservatives have a better sense of humor than Liberals. We can laugh at our own (not that Romney is all that conservative). We know nobody’s perfect.
Liberals have a more difficult time with that.
That was one of the best SNL skits I’ve ever seen. I was laughing out loud at many parts, but starting with tom hanks I was in stitches to the end.
IMO, the primary butt of the jokes in the skit was the debate (and it’s format) itself.
So true. The real SNL was TUESDAY night. Crowley’s selection succeeded if she was looking for most-inane and least-relevant questions. Even if some of the topics were on-target (like Benghazi), the questions failed to elicit any new response, any new information.
I thought Romney’s son in the audience begging “Let me at him, Dad! Let me at him!” was funny too.
>> His dad was half German and half Japanese
Kinda like sushi stroganoff.
thank you....I think it is really hard for liberals to be funny when doing this kind of ‘writing’. For some reason they feel the need to make the liberal look smart and aloof and the other side look like red necked racist schmucks
“Pharaoh isn’t a good impressionist...”
I agree that he does not do Zero well but generally he is very good. His Denzel Washington is uncanny.
That's my guess too.
A white guy playing a black guy is probably politically incorrect. Think Al Jolson.
Never mind that Armisen was very good at it.
you just did it yourself. its “acts of terror” plural.
Saturday Night Live? Who watches THAT? Ever since Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Akroyd, Garrett Morris, Gilda Radner, Jane Curtain, and Lorraine Newman left, that show SUCKS!
Funny? ya, but they never really hit Obama with the same hard hitting satire they use to defame a republican president... their bias shows. A more hard hitting routine would have included the moderator holding up the “transcript” and then having the Romney character stoping his argument to ask the mod why she has a transcript and how did Obama know that she had it, then asking if there was some kind of collusion going on between them... and in response, having the mod and the Obama character sheepishly denying... could have been very funny.
I thought the writing was typically lazy and unimaginative for the modern SNL. I didn’t laugh much, and never loudly. Out of the first 3 debate sketches, the only thing I found genuinely funny were some of Biden’s lines in the V.P. debate.
They spend a lot of time in these sketches simply quoting what happened in the real debate. That’s lazy, unimaginative and not funny. They don’t introduce any new ideas of their own. A great parody sketch should start out at the beginning copying and establishing the source material. Then with each gag it should get more unpredictable and absurd. Every question and line of dialogue shouldn’t simply be a mirror image of what was in the original broadcast. How about instead of copying the idea of the debate so directly, set the whole thing in a boxing ring and have them trading verbal barbs as well as real punches?
And when they do introduce a new idea in these sketches, they act like it’s the greatest idea since sliced bread and beat it into the ground, without building on it. In this case that would be the idea of Romney and Obama acting like street-fighters. A good sketch would have a lot more ideas than that or it would push that idea to the limit and actually have Romney and Obama rolling on the ground brawling by the end.
Here’s an example of a classic political sketch, one of their funniest ever, Dana Carvey doing the McLaughlin Group. You can see how the absurdity builds throughout the sketch. By the end, it has its own ideas and identity to it and is not just a straightforward “riff” on the original show.
This write-up recaps the debate sketch and also some of the lines that Seth Meyers had about the election campaign on “Weekend Update”: http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/celebrity/NATL-SNL-and-Tom-Hanks-Tackle-Second-Presidential-Debate-175107621.html
I tried to post this comment and couldn’t get it to work, so I’ll just put it here:
As a longtime topical comedy writer myself (for national radio shows), I think it’s very telling of the mindset at SNL that when Obama was ahead in the polls, the jokes were about what a struggling loser Romney is; and now that Romney is ahead in the polls, the jokes are about how unreliable the polls are. Notice, too, that in the do’s and don’ts bits, the Romney jokes are put-downs of Romney (his smile is creepy, saving the Olympics wasn’t such a big deal), while the Obama jokes are putdowns of us (he’s so much smarter than us that he needs to talk down to us more, we’re too dumb to understand what Obamacare is). Yet if you suggest that they might be a teensy bit biased, I bet they’d deny it and probably actually believe it.
Some of them probably would. For them, it's not really conscious. If it were, they might feel compelled to correct for it. But they're really convinced that Obama isn't funny because they don't want to make fun of him, and because Obama "isn't funny" they don't make jokes about him.
I suspect, though, that some of the writers and performers really are consciously doing what they can for Obama. But the idea of being consciously biased doesn't enter into it, since the really committed followers are convinced that no one could possibly be on the other side in good faith.
Lorne Michaels was friends with the McCains and the Barack-Hillary contest divided a lot of New Yorkers, so the show wasn't quite as biased in 2008. This time, there's nothing standing in the way of complete submission to Obama for SNL. The Onion is the same way nowadays.
Actually, I would say the show's golden age was the era of Dennis Miller, John Lovitz, Phil Hartman, Dana Carvey and Mike Meyers.