On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 13:12:57 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<
spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:34:25 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2024 8:48 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 23:27:25 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1018130/Castle_Break/ until 10/13/2024 @ 10 AM PDT (USA).
Urg, retro graphics and arcade gameplay. Not my thing at all.
But it's free! And it would make The Number go up.
I'm so torn.
Internet, tell me what to do!
Internet: Get a Life! :P
>
William Shatner said that: https://boingboing.net/2020/10/06/the-snl-shatner-get-a-life-video.html ;)
>
I remember watching that live, back when SNL was still worth watching.
>
The decaying zombie of snl still shambles on apparently, but there's no
spark of life anymore.
>
It's very rare SNL is funny even with its cold openings. SNL is 50 (dang!) now.
Even its season premiere was weak. :(
>
In fairness, a lot of the classic stuff was crap too. We (personally
and as a culture) tend only to remember... well, the stuff that's
memorable. Either the really good skits, or the really terrible ones.
But the 'just not funny' or 'heh, that was mildly amusing' stuff we
forget, and that makes it seem like older stuff was, on average,
funnier.
>
Another example of this Monty Python. A few years ago I made it a
point to watch the entire series; all the episodes, back to back. And
while there were a lot of really funny moments, they're all the ones
you'd expect: the Cheese Shoppe, the Lumberjack Song, the Dead Parrot,
etc. But there was an equal number of 'average' skits that were pretty
forgettable, and even more bits that just weren't very good.
>
Plus, tastes change and what I find funny doesn't necessarily match
what somebody born in 1990 or 2000 or 2010 finds humorous. I've talked
to a number of younger people who think the current SNL cast is
hilarious (albeit, with not quite the same cachet of the old troupe,
just because online personalities -who aren't quite as restrained by
to US broadcasting standards- can engage in wilder gags). And even I
have to admit that, at times, the current SNL cast can perform a
memorable skit.
It's true that some old skits were crap or just not that funny even
back then, but in all cases "funny" really means "funny compared to
what?" Part of SNL's comedy edge was because things could get weird.
The Interwebs upped the ante on what weird could mean, making the
definition of "weird" by broadcast TV standards rather tame by
comparison.
So, much of the older material doesn't hold up well over time, because
of changing times or the fact that the jokes written into the scripts
relied on the immediate relevancy of current events in the news to be
funny at the time. Some of those skits you watch now really were
funny when they originally hit the air, but nowdays not so much
because the circumstances around them faded.
The Internet also made it possible so that if you were seeking
attention in the form of media fame, YouTube and similar were much
faster vehicles to get there.
One area that you probably are correct is that SNL has always targeted
a younger demographic, and it would not surprise me at all to learn
that a teenager finds amusements in certain references that a Gen X'er
or even millenial is not going to find funny simply because they don't
"get" the reference or source of humor. I got the impression many
years ago (the last time I watched SNL) that the humor was
increasingly fishing for very juvenile giggles rather than trying
tickle the funny bone of multiple age brackets the way it did in the
early years. I can remember watching originaly 70's cast member skits
and both my friends and parents found much of it funny...I don't see
that generational span happening from current skits at all these days.
TL;DR: in twenty years, we (either personally or as a culture) be
looking back fondly on a lot of the current SNL skits and wondering
why the 2050 cast is so unfunny ;-)
Not going to happen due to all of the above I mentioned.
Many SNL members previously transformed into hollywood film stars
because they had what it took to get there.
When is the last time an SNL cast member rose up to the level of
success of Chevy Chase, Adam Sandler, Bill Murray, Mike Meyers, Eddie
Murphy, Will Ferrell, etc?
Pete Davidson or others like that have been in a few films that nobody
really noticed or cared about. Nothing like the old timers. Just
like in the music industry, the newer generations of performers
generally don't have the same talent level to make that happen as the
old school equivalents. Granted, there are other conditions that
simultaneously work against them, in addition to the talent deficit,
but it also needs to be recognized for what it is.
I know how much you enjoy being TheContrarian(tm) and rationalizing
how things aren't really the way the majority of people say they are,
but the fact that SNL is nothing compared to what it used to be is
pretty much universally known and also measurable by metrics like
viewer ratings.
An increase in wokeness has helped fuel a painful downward spiral for
the show. One might think that a woke show trying to appeal to a
demographic that has been brainwashed into wokeness should be
successful, but it's an example of how nobody wins when the rules of
wokism are allowed to interfere with humor potential.
Free Castle Break on Steam!
Re: Free Castle Break on Steam!