Saturday-Night-Live.com Speaks Out On MADtv and MADtv Fans!!!!

[Jericho]

Hey, guys. Recently, I did some roaming over at the SNL Message Board over at Saturday-Night-Live.com. I came across this one thread in which a group of SNLers provided their thoughts and feelings concerning the long-standing MADtv/SNL competition. Basically, these SNLers commented at length on the matter of MADtv replacing SNL on Comedy Central. These remarks are sort of outdated, but I think they’re worth a good read.

Just check out these comments:

Once upon a time, MADtv was the freshest sketch comedy show on late-night TV. It had the good fortune to debut when SNL reached its lowest point in 1994-1995. By that time, SNL had lost so much of its magic that just about any sketch comedy show would’ve looked good in comparison.

That being said, MADtv was a fine show when it first started out. Orlando Jones, Phil LaMarr, David Herman, Mary Scheer, Nicole Sullivan, Debra Wilson, Artie Lange and Bryan Callen were a terrific cast. The material was pretty solid, at least good enough that it was bettered by the talents of the cast members. My early favourites include the recurring bit about the “Amazing Products” infomercial, as well as the sketch in which the Mexican wrestler El Asso Wipo tries to join the WWF.

Over the years, however, MADtv could NOT do what SNL has done since 1975. And that is to fill void left behind by departing cast members. Granted, MADtv has had a few good actors since losing the original cast. Will Sasso, Mo Collins, Alex Borstein and Pat Kilbane all fit the bill. But, for the most part, the void was filled out by a lot of jobbers who merely came and went (i.e., Andrew Bowen, Lisa Kushell, Christian Duguey). With this dearth of talent, MADtv’s writers were forced to fall back on constantly reprising the show’s few popular recurring characters--such as Vancome Lady, Ms. Swan and Stuart. The writers took all these one-joke characters and foolishly ran them into the damn ground.

Critics think SNL overuses characters too much? Every time I watch maybe 7-8 random MADtv episodes from the past 6 years, I swear that Stuart character appears in every goddamn episode. Characters like those ceased to be funny literally after the first 50 times they were shown. At least SNL nowadays limits even its most over-played recurring characters to at most 3-4 times per season.

And that, in a nutshell, is why SNL is better than MADtv. Whenever I watch MADtv these days, I get the impression that MAD is just a way for FOX to compete with NBC in the sketch comedy genre. In contrast, whenever I watch SNL, I get the feeling that Lorne Michaels is personally trying to deliver the best show possible. The NBC network obviously plays a large role. But SNL fans have heard enough about the behind-the-scenes SNL stuff to know that Lorne still considers SNL to be his baby, and that he will never let the show get completely bad for too long. Is SNL perfect? Hell no. But, at least SNL is like a yo-yo, always having its ups and downs. On the other hand, MADtv is just like a slinky, continually going down the stairs.

Lastly, I’d like to respond to MADtv’s idiotic point about SNL being popular and successful only because of the celebrity hosts and musical guests. Does MADtv actually think that many people say “Hey, Conan O’Brien is hosting SNL tonight! Hell, I'd better watch!” when SNL is about to go on? Yes, most of SNL’s guest hosts are booked due to their celebrity status. However, if they do a bad job hosting, they don't get asked back. The reason why Britney Spears has hosted twice is that she did a terrific job hosting the first time. The fans bring in the ratings for SNL--not Britney, The Rock, Jon Stewart, Eminem, or whoever might be serving as host or musical guest on a given Saturday night. The fans are what’s keeping SNL alive.


-- Mark Polishuk

MADtv is everything I dislike about sketch comedy.

MADtv relies on recurring characters and celebrity impressions WAY too much. I didn’t mind Ms. Swan that much, because I think Alex Borstein is pretty funny. But all of MADtv’s other recurring characters are just plain annoying. Stephnie Weir plays a character named Dot, a hyperactive girl with braces. That character reminds me very much of Amy Poehler’s “Girl Scout” character that she did in the first episode of UCB, as well as of Amy's portrayal of Andy Richter’s spazzy sister that she used to do on Conan.

All of MADtv’s sketches either are character-oriented or are parodies of TV shows/movies. Except for Frank Caliendo, MADtv doesn’t have anyone that can do accurate impressions. Often, whenever a MADtv cast member tries to do a political/celebrity impression, he or she merely uses his or her normal voice. Will Sasso's impression of James Lipton was embarrassingly bad, and nowhere near as funny as Will Ferrell's. MADtv almost never has situation-based sketches--such as Will Forte’s “Give Up The Ham” sketch. Instead, MADtv relies on talk show-style setups or juxtapositions of pop-culture elements--such as “Kenny Rogers’ Jackass”. Plus, MADtv’s level of humor rarely rises above the lowest common denominator or the shock-value variety. Generally, most of the jokes/performances on MADtv seem to be designed to elicit belly laughter rather than a good, genuine laugh. It’s the kind of comedy that inspires a Jerry Springer-style “Wooooo!!!!” from the audience. Yeah, MADtv is the Fridays of its generation.

For all its faults, SNL is usually more subtle with its humor. Witness the "Jessica and Nick Golden Anniversary" sketch and its reference to the movie “Soylent Green” -- a joke that MADtv fans probably wouldn't get.

So, yeah. Overall, MADtv has:

1. too much dependence on obnoxious recurring characters/celebrity impressions
2. too many cheap-shot jokes
3. too much overdone slapstick
4. too many uninspired pop-culture parodies
5. too much being loud for the sake of getting audience reaction.

There have been a few performers on MADtv that are actually talented. But, MADtv itself is nowhere near as funny as SNL to me.


-- Brian Jaudon

Admittedly, I had seen so many SNL reruns on CC over the past 7 years that I really quit making time for them. That might have to do with my being in grad school now, which takes up much of my time. Still, I miss returning after class, and catching bits and pieces of the show. Now, MADtv is on CC, and I’m just not impressed with most of the sketches on that show. MADtv’s comedy is overly performance-based. It seems as if the premise of every MADtv sketch is predicated upon one or two crazy, bizarre or silly characters. And the humor is consequently derived from the reactions of others to those characters. In most cases, the cast members on MADtv always seem to do nothing but act like a bunch of nutcases. This type of comedy seems to be devoid of any well-crafted writing or witty jokes for whatever reason, IMO.

I prefer the mix that SNL has. On SNL, the humor of most sketches is based upon the script and the concept, and that of others are more or less based upon the antics of one or more really wacky characters. Of course, it's better when you can get both in the same sketch.


-- JP

Almost everything on MADtv is based around some sort of one-note recurring character that actually turns out to be more annoying than funny. I do, however, enjoy the older episodes of MADtv from the mid-90s, when the show didn’t rely so heavily on mind-numbingly irritating recurring characters to produce each episode.

There are/were several very funny people on MADtv who could’ve just as easily been on SNL. Originally, MADtv was more like MAD Magazine itself. And if you've ever read the magazine, you know its humor can range from hilarious to smileworthy. In its current state, MADtv is nothing like the magazine. It’s now a lot more like “SNL Jr.,” as the show has become excessively character-driven and slapstick-oriented.

The main problem with MADtv these days is that it is even more character-dependent than SNL ever was. MADtv is in a period where EVERY SINGLE EPISODE has something like a Ms. Swan sketch. That’s great if you're a big fan of Alex Borstein. But I found that character to be incredibly annoying after its 35th identical installment. Worse, they habitually put a character like Ms. Swan in a segment with absolutely no purpose, thinking that its appearance alone is enough to generate laughter.


-- Jay Shuler

First, if we want to use MADtv in a negative connotation when making comparisons to SNL, that’s our own right. Tons of people disrespect SNL on a regular basis, so why aren’t they guilty of anything? So it’s purely hypocritical for a MADtv fan to bash SNL on a MADtv forum, at the same time whining about all the MADtv bashing that goes on over at SNL forums. There’s more to life than worrying about what faceless strangers on the Internet think about a particular TV show.

Second, SNL did reinvent sketch comedy by modifying the “variety show” model to make the sketch comedy genre itself mainstream. And it continued to revolutionize the form from 95-96 until about 2 years ago. Just because SNL has hit its doldrums doesn't mean it wasn't important before. And yes, despite its current slump, SNL is still America’s preferred late-night sketch comedy show. I watched MADtv several times this year (and subsequently turned the channel at 10:30 CST), because MADtv just doesn't compare to SNL. MADtv did have its glory days about 5 or 6 years ago. But even then, it was a far cry from SNL.

Besides, if SNL didn’t reinvent sketch comedy, then who did? It sure as hell wasn't MADtv, since it’s basically a modern version of In Living Color. So who did? In Living Color itself? The Ben Stiller Show? Fridays?? All these SNL alternatives got cancelled because the American public didn’t care for them. But no one ever wants to axe SNL when it has its down times, as millions of people still like to watch it, nonetheless.

Third, SNL’s guest hosts usually do a solid job. On average, there are only about 5 exceptions every year, but the cast typically makes up for the host’s gaffes. In regards to SNL’s musical guests, MTV/VH1 hail SNL as one of the most important institutions in music history. So MADtv can argue all they want about SNL’s hosts and musical guests. But in reality, it’s all part of an SNL convention that's been revered since Day One. So if MAD wants to knock SNL for its use of guest hosts and musical guests, then MADtv might as well knock SNL’s entire 29-year history.

That SNL has big stars like Britney Spears host the show does NOT mean SNL is a “sellout.” It’s a tradition that SNL has been following since its inception in 1975. So it’s not like SNL just started the idea. The opposite can be said for MADtv, which has also been booking guest stars and musical guests--in obvious imitation of SNL. And MAD wants to distinguish itself from SNL?

In regards to the idea that most MADtv fans are in their 20s and 30s, I just don’t believe it. Every time I come across positive remarks about MADtv, they’re usually made by teens and pre-teens that know more about Snoop Dogg’s discography than about the recent White House leak. In regards to the idea that MADtv is gaining steam, I don’t believe that either. According to Nielsen Media Research, MADtv’s weekly ratings are usually less than half of SNL’s weekly ratings. Moreover, late-night viewers and media outlets hardly mention MADtv, except when they want to dog the show. So, MADtv has been rapidly losing steam.

I genuinely believe that most MADtv fans are simply jealous of and bitter about SNL’s popularity. Why else would they be overly sensitive about anti-MAD/pro-SNL comments that they find on the Internet? Why else would they bitch about anti-MAD remarks, yet have no bones about dissing SNL?


-- Bob Barron

Now unlike the SNL fanboys in Ef's post in MADtv VS SNL: The Great Debate some time ago, I think these arguments are made by educated old-school SNL fans. What do you guys think of these comments? Do you guys agree or disagree with the many points that these SNLers make? Do you guys think that these remarks sound reasonable? Do you guys think these SNLers are being biased and unfair? Do you guys respect the opinions of these SNLers or not?

[MJB12]

I don't want to bash SNL, because I can enjoy it sometimes (not anymore, it's run too dry). So here's what I have to say:

-All MADtv characters are limited to 3-4 appearances per season. Same as SNL. SNL has had classic characters like Spartans and Joey Mack. Are they not one-joke characters placed in different settings too? At least MAD characters write their own sketches and do liven up the character. When a character like Ms. Swan and Stuart are on for six+ years, of course they're going to seem overused. But if you watched the sketches over the years when they aired, they shouldn't seem overused at all.

-Lorne Michaels tries to deliver the best show possible every week. Out of a 20 episode season, 2-4 are excellent, 5 are good, and the rest are mediocre. MADtv does deliver good shows on a regular basis. Plus, we have 5 more episodes per season.

-60 minutes vs. 90 minutes. SNL dries out too much the last half hour.

-Hosts who can't sketch act appear on SNL in almost every sketch of the night. Reading cue cards is not fun to watch. MAD guests appear in a maximum of 2 sketches a night.

-MADtv has the opportunity to expand parodies to pre-taped segments like on the street things and music videos. SNL can do them too, but then the show isn't live anymore.

-SNL fans look down upon the occasional potty humor on MADtv. Take a look at SNL sketches like 'Cork Soakers' and Z105 sketches. Are they not completely the same type of humor?

-Castmembers are given equal airtime. SNL's cast is not only too big now but with guest hosts, cast gets even less chance for airtime. MAD evens out cast airtime.

I'm sure I'll think of a lot more. But the point I'm trying to make is that for every putdown an SNL fan can make about MADtv, a MADtv fan can hit back with two more.

[MJB12]

Oh, yeah. I'd like to see the results of this. SNL continues to pull in ratings because of the hosts and guests. If SNL were to put on three lives shows in a month without a host/musical guest, they would not succeed in the ratings. MADtv carries a reasonable audience without pulls like that. Musical guests appear in only a small number of episodes in a season, usually one guest star in one/two sketches per episode. The cast depends on itself.

If the show was not above average, it would not still be around. The ratings are good enough to keep it going. It consistently stays good. SNL's ratings are NEVER consistent. They're at this one week, this another. The only thing it comes down to is how funny the show is. When recently popular castmembers like Cheri Oteri, Will Ferrell, and Ana Gasteyer left, so did the good sketch ideas. SNL seems to be getting too desperate for ideas so they're repeating jokes over and over.

[CrazyCracker]

That's what I don't get they put Madtv down for being a less sophisticated humor, but sophisticated or not it is still humor and it is still funny. I don't care wether the audience is older or younger what's it matter as long as the comedy is fresh and makes the audience laugh.

[Jericho]

Originally posted by MJB12
Oh, yeah. I'd like to see the results of this. SNL continues to pull in ratings because of the hosts and guests. If SNL were to put on three lives shows in a month without a host/musical guest, they would not succeed in the ratings. MADtv carries a reasonable audience without pulls like that. Musical guests appear in only a small number of episodes in a season, usually one guest star in one/two sketches per episode. The cast depends on itself.

If the show was not above average, it would not still be around. The ratings are good enough to keep it going. It consistently stays good. SNL's ratings are NEVER consistent. They're at this one week, this another. The only thing it comes down to is how funny the show is. When recently popular castmembers like Cheri Oteri, Will Ferrell, and Ana Gasteyer left, so did the good sketch ideas. SNL seems to be getting too desperate for ideas so they're repeating jokes over and over.

But what about Mark's claim that SNL is succeeding mostly because of its loyal fans, that the show's fans are what's keeping SNL on the air? Is that a valid point?

[Pool Girl]

Dot doesn't have braces.



Does she?

[Caffeine King]

They might've confused Dot with Angela

[jetaimaster]

the ppl that i know who like madtv better are funnier than the ppl i know that like snl
right there
moreover, will ferrell isn't funny neither is jimmy fallon
i just saw anchorman, so stupid

[MJB12]

Originally posted by Jericho


But what about Mark's claim that SNL is succeeding mostly because of its loyal fans, that the show's fans are what's keeping SNL on the air? Is that a valid point?

Loyal fans are not what's keeping it alive. SNL's ratings would be much more comparable to MADtv's if they didn't have hosts and musical guests.

[jetaimaster]

i agree
moreover, celebrities in general aren't funny (unless they can act, but for the most part they suck)

[BlondieFan]

I know how some of those people are.At my school there is literally a small SNL group for people who like SNL.I joined JUST to see what they talk about(kinda like a spy).One of the people said that MADtv copies off of SNL,that MADtv is one of the stupidest comedy shows ever put on tv,and that it should be canceled.They all should just face the facts that MAD is here to stay and that they don't copy off SNL.Proof that they don't copy off SNL is there's no kid on SNL that says 'look what I can do' and has a dad that's a dead beat.We've learned to except the fact that SNL is here to stay,why can't they do the same to MADtv?

[elscorcho]

I think people should really just get over the SNL vs. MADtv thing and realize they are both good shows, and they are both different too

[madOC112789]

Originally posted by jetaimaster
i agree
moreover, celebrities in general aren't funny (unless they can act, but for the most part they suck)

Ok...Do you realize that celebrities became celebrities by being in the entertainment industry...which happens to mean most can and do act.
And Anchorman was awesome.
EDIT: i'll give my two cents on the entire subject tomorrow...which i know everyone's waiting for ::sarcasm::

[Caffeine King]

SNL isn't what it used to be...





and i thought Anchorman sucked

[madOC112789]

Why would you think Anchorman sucked?! it was one of the funniest movies....

[i like madtv]

Ratings--ummm on that thing w/ the hosts being the reason for high ratings,,,i think its true cus the fans wanna see the hosts, so they watch the show, they wanna see more of the celebs, so SNL puts the host in EVERY sketch, so the fans stay tuned in, JMO...MADtv does only use the celebs in 1-2 sketches, and even then the celebs can act it funny

Cast Members--SNL has had very funny cast members up until will ferrel left IMO,,after that nobody seems/seemed to be as "classic" as ferrell, oteri, gasteyer, etc.,,i think MADtv is walking that line, i dont think most of the people there now are gonna be as big as the originals, and mo and others, but at the same time most of S10 cast is new or relatively new, so maybe in time theyll be great (same for SNL),,,also, i think that Kenan Thompson is going to save SNL, seeing that EVERYONE has known who he is for like the 90s and this decade, and IMO everyone seems to like him, so maybe SNL fans will tune in for something OTHER than the hosts.

MADtv then and now--the critics said that MAD isnt as "one off" as it used to be, saying that MAD uses too many recurring sketches...i think MAD is getting back to its roots, slowly but surely, i think theyve been using more and more one-offs this season, and hopefully theyll use more and get back to its roots in time

MADtv copying SNL--some critics also said MAD copies SNL,,,please read the credits u dumbasses, BASED ON MAD MAGAZINE,,,besides, MAD castmembers write most their own sketches, and i think the last thing they want is to be like SNL, especially how it is now....

Recurring Characters--again on the recurring characters thing, i also think Ms Swan and Stuart are/were overused, but IMO they delivered comedy everytime, so i dont see whats wrong w/ seeing them again and again,,,Z105 on the other hand

One final thing--if it isnt the hosts that are bringin ratings, its cus its all the fans that are just waiting for SNL to be what it used to be, and to me it just isnt gettin there, come on, whats w/ seth and the "zing" guy!?!? thats not a classic! thats just annoying!

this has been charles and his opinions

[madOC112789]

What's wrong with you guys believing that SNL has actual fans who tune into the show just for the sake of liking the show? Not everyone only tunes in if their favorite celebrity is on...of course that happens BUT their are actual people who watch no matter what, like me. That's like me saying 'Yea people watch SNL for the comedy...they only watch MADtv for Stuart". And Kenan Thompson SAVE SNL!??? are you kidding me? he's got one impression and one voice. He would be the last person to save the show. No matter how much child star success he's had, i can guarentee that will make no difference in his success on SNL. You guys are becoming biased.

[jetaimaster]

Originally posted by madOC112789


Ok...Do you realize that celebrities became celebrities by being in the entertainment industry...which happens to mean most can and do act.
And Anchorman was awesome.

i would like to challenge that
celebrities are celebrities b/c they are good looking
no one wants to look at ugly actors, i for one dont
and if u think anchorman was awesome, then ure not worth arguing with

[madOC112789]

You must be incredably shallow for only liking movies if the actors are good looking, you probably have never given Anchorman a chance becasue of your biased views on Saturday Night Live which you've probably never given a fair chance, and it's spelled you're and you .

[i like madtv]

What's wrong with you guys believing that SNL has actual fans who tune into the show just for the sake of liking the show? Not everyone only tunes in if their favorite celebrity is on...of course that happens BUT their are actual people who watch no matter what

,,,,sorry for the "only for the hosts" thing,,,sorry i got my opinion mixed w/ fact for a second, i dont mean to seem like John Kerry but i do think there are fans that tune in just for the comedy,what i meant is that it just seems to me that SNL has kinda lost sight of the thought of just doing the show for the sake of comedy (Dont get me wrong, MAD hasnt been perfect w/ the idea of just comedy either)