posted
I thought it was an amusing premise, but the skit went on too long (as SNL skits are wont to do)
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow- that was... different. Wow- that's pretty funny. Definitely disgusting in its content- but oh so very funny.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Shawshank on this one. I didn't know whether to laugh or find it disgusting. I suppose I can do both.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't the boobs that were funny, boobs are boobs, Rachel Dratch's and the twin's reaction to the boobs were funny.
Maybe in some world, boys are supposed to be immune to boobs, and many a young girl has been hurt or demoralized because her classmates can't concentrate in the presence of her chest, but there is a line between sketch-comedy funny and distasteful, and I thought the skit fell in sharply on the side of sketch-comedy funny.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It started as funny...and kind of dropped off into "nauseating". It didn't take the source material seriously enough to be funny.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like almost every SNL skit since the dawn of time, it was twenty seconds of funny in a five minute skit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why the only SNL you really need to watch are the anniversary specials. You get years and years of 20 second funnies in about an hour and a half.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So how long before the inevitable bad SNL movie comes out based on twenty seconds of funny in a five minute skit?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the problem: you cannot build a five-minute skit around one joke.
This is in my opinion a basic freakin' principle of humor. But no one seems to get this. SNL. Letterman. Bob and Tom. Mancow. MadTV. The Onion.
All these groups think that they can goof and elaborate on a given punchline after the punchline has been revealed. And for the most part, they're wrong. Sometimes -- like with The Onion -- it's possible to explore some additional funny through nuance, especially if you're making some sort of humorous analogy. But if there's no more depth to be found, plumbing the depths of your joke won't dredge up additional humor unless you slip into slapstick.
You know who understood this? Laugh-in. And, oddly enough, early seasons of "The Simpsons."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: So how long before the inevitable bad SNL movie comes out based on twenty seconds of funny in a five minute skit?
Aren't they all like that?
And, for the record, you are aware that there is only one SNL-based movie that didn't make a huge profit (Stuart Saves His Family). With those numbers, why shouldn't they keep doing what they do?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, the joke died long before the end of the skit. But you have to admit, they were pretty good at spoofing the characters. That was much more funny than the boob humour.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Here's the problem: you cannot build a five-minute skit around one joke.
This is in my opinion a basic freakin' principle of humor. But no one seems to get this. SNL. Letterman. Bob and Tom. Mancow. MadTV. The Onion.
Yep. That's why the best bits of The Onion are the headlines themselves and the "man on the street" section.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Anyways, I usually just skim the onion and skip back to the AV Club section. There's a lot of great stuff to read there.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: And, for the record, you are aware that there is only one SNL-based movie that didn't make a huge profit (Stuart Saves His Family). With those numbers, why shouldn't they keep doing what they do?
Huh. I hadn't realized It's Pat made a huge profit.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's why I thought it stayed just on the right side of the creepy/funny line: In my opinion, since Alfonso Cuarón directed Azkaban, the movies themselves have increasingly been calling attention to Emma Watson's developing chest. Note that in that movie, the uniform was apparently mysteriously repealed, in favor of tight sweaters and tight jeans for Hermione. Frankly, I found Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to be a little bit creepy. And so I saw this skit as not merely a sophomoric riff on a girl developing, but as a social commentary on the way Hermione was becoming increasingly sexualized in the movies, and the way television and movies sexualize children in general.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
the thing i enjoyed most about the skit was the little references to the books they snuck in the sketch, ones that you might even miss during a one-time viewing: Parnell's mention of Butterbeer, Hermione talking about a cloaking spell, etc. It just makes me happy to know that one of the writers on SNL is a huge Harry Potter dork. Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
