Like your "30 Rock didn't 'get better'; you just didn't get it" post a few months back, I could not agree more. There has been so much mythologizing of the early years of this show, but the truth is Broadway Video has been editing out the slow sketches in reruns and releasing "Best of" videos for so long that few people clearly remember what it is they're expounding on. I was certain this sort of thing would subside when the complete seasons were released on DVD, but it somehow persists.Personally, I find that time renders the "failed" sketches of the seventies absolutely fascinating; I wish I could articulate why.

There has always been more 'SNL is back' type discourse than 'Saturday Night Dead' type discourse. Just about everyone wants the show to be good and its gotten the benefit of the doubt more than any other show in television. No other show that has a ratio of terribleness/goodness as SNL has lasted as long. Even you are admitting that the pleasures of the show are pretty different from most shows. Some people like thrift store shopping and some don't.

Amen, Brother Thorn. I think they've been trying too hard lately, but they're still "with it".And can I just say? Kenan is a golden "child". He truly is All That.

Not having been able to stand more than 10 mins of it since Myers & Carvey left, I respectfully disagree.

Thanks for writing the article you're sick of reading, dumb-ass!

I contend that this is the DEFINITIVE argument on teh subject:http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33086

Amen! (Yes, the non-Lorne years were atrocious, and not necessarily because of a lack of Lorne.) SNL is funny and it's an institution. If I never hear the phrase "(back) when SNL used to be funny" again, it will be too soon.

But should it really be 90 minutes? As for the constantly shifting status of the show: I'd chalk that up to the fact that the cast and prominence of certain members is always in shift. I wouldn't expect a sports fan to say the Denver Broncos are always the same Denver Broncos.I'd say the cast is better than it has been in ages. The only real dead weight is in the weekend update section and Keenan.

Agree and disagree. Yes, the show has always been uneven with the very excellent regularly flanked by the very poor. However, it's more than a stretch to claim the peaks are as high these days as they've ever been. When was the last time you and your colleagues lauded a sketch's genius around the proverbial water cooler? More importantly, your claim that SNL is still "a playground for our most talented comic performers" is pretty tough to swallow. There are too many great performers doing too much great work nowhere near the SNL studios for this to be taken as dogma anymore. Consumers and performers have many more choices now. It's like expansion in baseball - more teams means less top-notch pitching per team. More avenues for great comedy means less great comedy will gravitate toward SNL. I, for one, do not find this something to be mourned.

Thank you Jesse! You're awesome!

"Even you are admitting that the pleasures of the show are pretty different from most shows. Some people like thrift store shopping and some don't."I think the better analogy is that some people liked Thift store shopping when they were kids, but when they grew up, they realized that they really could buy new clothes at a different store or that they really liked ties now instead of old 70s MrT shirts.Saturday Night Live appeals to a certain sensibility. Once you grow up, you start finding other things co compare it to or you find that your comedy preferences have changed. Instead of people saying that they've changed, they blame the product for not changing with them or not being exactly how they liked it when they first liked it.

I feel that SNL is getting it's ass handed to it by Mad TV on a weekly basis. Sure SNL is a live weekly show but there are far too many "fails" and no new talent ever gets to break through. So many of my favorite comedians and comediennes of the past 15 years have come and gone on that show because they couldn't get "on the show" but turned out to be brilliant and funny elsewhere.Add to that the fact that few performers of color can ever stick around and are remanded to supporting roles or made to do bullshit like dress up as women. Why was it that Dean Edwards, Finesse Mitchell and Keenan Thompson were always used for quick ethnic sight gags or "specialized" humor while some players got used again and again? The only reason Keenan's still there is because he'll do ANYTHING. The guys on Mad TV are utilized SO much better.This season of SNL has been disappointing so far (and I had low expectations to start).One.

As for how SNL treats their black performers, there's really no argument to be made. They've always had great black stars, and they were always used effectively. Look at people like Tim Meadows, Maya Rudolph, Tracey Morgan, and Eddie Murphy. Tim was a staple of the show and was used often. Maya was extremely versatile and one of the best performers. Tracey, while having a decidedly urban place in the cast, did great in such roles because that's who he is and what he does best. Eddie Murphy was the golden child, pun intended. Not only did he do things like Mr. Robinson and Buckwheat, but he also played a Jewish Gumby and did thought provoking pieces (the classic, "White Like Me"). SNL is still on the air because of him.And now there's Keenan Thompson. Does he play women? Yes, but then so did Shakespearean actors. But he doesn't play them because he's black, he plays them because he's very funny when he does it. And also he's a big person. Will Ferrel played Janet Reno. John Goodman was Linda Tripp. Finesse Mitchell played Starkeisha (his own character). Unfortunately, Finesse didn't have any time to do much else because he was one of the performers that got caught in the cut back. Dean Edwards didn't get much time, because he never made it out of the featuring spot. But Keenan is still going strong, and is often responsible for the funniest sketches, sometimes simply playing himself. This isn't even to mention perfomers like Horatio Sanz or Fred Armisen.Sure, MADtv has had its share of different ethnic performers, but they were typecast far more than those on SNL. The running gag of MADtv is that Bobby Lee only plays Asian characters. Aries played crack heads, pimps, or downright slaves. Debra Wilson was Oprah, Whitney Houston, or sassy black girl with big boobs (not only was she typecast by race, she was typecast sexually).

Thank you so much for standing up for SNL. I'm sick of it too. People have been saying SNL sucks even during the golden ages, such as Hartman, or Ferrell.

It's all subjective. Some folks never liked Weekend Update after Chevy left, some people loved Jimmy Fallon, not my cup of tea. My personal fav WU anchor was Norm MacDonald - just so snarky and sardonic. Check out this funny interview where he talks about his TV viewing habits and look at what he says about "Celebrity Rehab" - you can just hear his voice saying it! lolhttp://dish.fancast.com/2008/04/watching_tv_with_norm_macdonal.html

I disagree. SNL has gone through many phases, and I've liked most of them. I was a big fan back in the Eddie Murphy days running through about 2001, and I can honestly say that I don't know anyone who religiously watches the show anymore. Every skit is some fake TV show, like "Bitch, is you crazy?" (which they've always done, but now it seems like it's EVERY skit). They haven't come up with a truly legendary skit or character in years (the last ones coming in the WIll Ferrel years). If you like it now, that's great and I'm glad you do, but there are many of us that take an objective view on this current "phase" and don't like it.