Better than ever

I can't even believe how friggin funny this show is after being off the air for so long.

Brian a racist (sort of)? Utter genious!

George Bush a man-child? Hilarious.

And it's about time someone made fun of the horrible acting on SNL. Jesus Christ that show is so over.

Except for the sort of dud ending this last episode was better than anything that has aired on network TV in the past two years. And somehow they managed to get nudity and jokes about oral sex in there despite the fact that the FCC is on a rampage against broadcasters who do anything even remotely edgy. Thanks, Family Guy! You made me laugh.

"david peppin" wrote in news:pM5pe.3760$[email]:

Also a nice subtle shot at Fox. When Meg comes back in upset, Peter comments "Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that my daughter was deflowered on a show that has roughly twice the audience of MadTV?" or something to that effect.

"david peppin" wrote in message news:pM5pe.3760$[email]...

I can't believe they got away with the sperm dumpster line.

I like the 'new' madeover Meg. Those tater tots sure grew!

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 02:42:15 GMT, "Phillip Roncoroni" scribed into the ether:

I wonder if they tried to get away with the *real* phrase, and Fox had a small heart-attack.

Yup, I did a double-take when I heard it.

I thought the exact same thing. SPERM-dumpster?! Some dumpster, that's for sure. HA!

And what about Peter saying: "Ok, now where's the guy who slept with my daughter?". Great!!!!

Dud ending? the ending was the funniest part of that episode! Youre talking about the Showtime at the Apollo right?

david peppin wrote in news:pM5pe.3760$[email]:

The "acting" on SNL has never been its strong point. They have always been mildly over the top in their acting style, focusing more on the comedy and making it obvious that everyone treated it as an improv show, not an attempts at emmy's in the drama category. The show is no worse now than it was in the 70s. That said, the 70s stars have reached mythical celebrity status, while only the best of today's stars now have 30 years to reach that point. In 2035, we'll look back at 2005's stars and think... man these new guys suck.

Damn pessimists.

JPM III wrote:

Well that the show from the 70s was something of an overrated pop-phenomenon I'll agree with; time has allowed people to forget that for every great sketch involving Belushi, Aykroyd and Murray there were 2 or 3 that were middling to unwatchable. That said, they at least had the excuse that they were trying to do something relatively new and didn't know what was going to work on the show. SNL really has been a mediocre entity for at least a good 13 to 14 years now; it's not a question of being great actors, it's a question of most of them not being that funny (and whats worse, being the last ones to realize they aren't that funny). The best way to judge the different eras of the show is to compare their number of high points, and I don't think anyone with a sense of humor would say SNL from 1994-2005 reached the same highs that it reached in the late 70s or the late 80s. Will Ferrell, Darrell Hammond and Tracy Morgan at their best could be funny guys, but the reality over the last decade is you were sitting through a 90 minute show in which you might get one or two sketches that were worth remembering, and the rest was pretty much dreck that had you flipping channels or deciding to go out for the evening. The only real exceptions have been guest driven shows, a few Christopher Walken sketches coming to mind.

Omniscoid3000 wrote in news:[email]:

Alec Baldwin's Christmas Balls sketch was hilarious.

Will Ferrell as Alex Trebek in every occurrence was hilarious.

Will Ferrell and (Molly Shannon?) as Spartan Cheerleaders!

I like Tina Fey at the newsdesk. Not Jimmy Fallon so much, though I do like him well enough.

I'm sure there are countless other things I don't know about just because I don't want the show except for occasionally catching a syndicated rerun.