I can't remember the cast member (it was a woman) being interviewed, but she said something to the effect of that SNL was always pretty cutthroat between the comedians for getting jokes and characters in. Then all the SNL'ers started making movies, and suddenly it became all about who could get the next potential movie franchise character out in front of the cameras and star in it. Then it just became an exercise in getting out in front of the cameras as much as possible even if you couldn't do impressions or come up with hysterical characters/sketches, because you were angling to becom a known entity which then usually led to at least a B-level movie career.

So with a few rare exceptions, its a boatload of egos trying to score a better gig that are occasionally amusing by accident to whoever still watches it.

Well, the show hasn't been good since Chris Farley died, meaning 1997. So by that measure, I outgrew SNL when I was 12.

Sounds about right.

You know what? You're cool. It's nice to see someone with some decent perspective instead of the usual "everything peaked when i was 12" nostalgic nonsense

If that"s the case, I outgrew SNL when I was 3 :(

No. That's the trap people fall into. It's not simply a matter of perspective. I would pit mid-90's SNL against current SNL any day of the week--same with old Simpsons vs. new Simpsons, and mid 90s MTV vs. new MTV. It's the simple truth that these things have degraded. MTV, Simpsons, and SNL didn't even start out very good. They hit their stride somewhere in the first third or middle third of their lifespan, and then rapidly unfurled into self-imitation and pandering to an already vacuous youth market they're mostly out-of-touch with.

Even when I watched SNL as a teenager, in the mid-1990s, I enjoyed the 1970s/mid-1980s SNL reruns more. The SNL that was supposed to appeal to me had its moments, but the "eras" of SNL I liked seemed to rely more on decent writing, and musical guests that weren't "let's book this currently popular band."

This is outright pandering. It doesn't matter if it's PSY, Alec Baldwin, or Daniel Radcliffe; current SNL wants me to be amazed at the surprise guest, enough that I'll ignore the frequently bad quality of the sketch. This "sketch" doesn't even have a joke, just an attempt by Lorne Michaels to prove he still follows that "popular culture."

No not really.

SNL isn't just a thing that pumps out the same material. It is staffed by writers who change. The strategies change, the subject matter changes, the cast changes: everything changes.

Writers and comedians who know comedy know that SNL has changed for the worse over the past ten years.

As far as the other part of your argument goes: MTV went through a vast programming change around the turn of the century is quite literally a different station than it was during the 80's on 90's in almost everyway.

in short: nice idea but it doesnt really fit the reality of how television programming works regardless of how you judge the value of SNL and MTV.

also: the typical SNL cast member is a very different kind of comedian than the type of person who would appear on SNL during literally every other generation. You touched on the difference yourself 'when nickelodeon child stars'

Edgy, transgressive comedians stay the fuck away from SNL and cultivate material on their own terms through Funny or Die or developing their own internet presence (whitest kids u know, the guys who do workaholics) because they can literally do whatever they want, instead of answering to lorne.


so yeah: no.