Saturday Night Live 2/24/07 with host Rainn Wilson

Beau_in_Austin · 02-25-2007, 09:59 AM

I'm surprised, almost 12 hours after the CST airing, to see no thread.

GREAT episode, in my not-so-humble opinion, maybe one of the best of all time, and this is coming from someone who has watched since the goosebump inducing first episode with the original cast.

I thought before last night's show that the SNL writers would be fired up to write for Rainn, and apparently they were. And/or he himself brought a full bag of funny weirdness with him.

Fantastic musical guest, The Arcade Fire, too.

Sometimes they really come through, and last night was one of those times.

cditty · 02-25-2007, 10:08 AM

No offense, but this was the BEST they can do? I watched it because Wilson was on. I laughed during the monologue and during the Weekend update. Other than that, I was wondering why the show was still on the air. I think that after 30+ years, this show has met it's time.

DaveBogart · 02-25-2007, 01:04 PM

The show had its moments. The music portions can't be included in those moments. What a sucky band.

Bierboy · 02-25-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beau_in_Austin

I'm surprised, almost 12 hours after the CST airing, to see no thread.....

That's because, outside of The Office bit, it sucked.

SoCal Scott · 02-25-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveBogart

The show had its moments. The music portions can't be included in those moments. That's not a band I enjoy.

Sorry, but I had to change your post. Music is art, and art is subjective. So, if you didn't like Arcade Fire, I can respect that. But to call them "sucky" is a bit much. Their first album, "Funeral", was hailed by critics and fans as one of the best to come out in years. They are one of the brightest stars in music today.

Oh, and I loved their set on SNL. Can't wait for the new album.

JC Hollywood FL · 02-25-2007, 06:35 PM

The Nuni and Nooni sketch (I don't care enough to look up how they spell their names) was stupid the first time and is still stupid. SNL has let too many stupid sketches continue as regular bits, and that is why the show is no longer good. If a sketch is stupid, drop it. Don't try to find something new to do with it and hope something like a toast chair is going to click. It's stupid.

Jesda · 02-25-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

Sorry, but I had to change your post. Music is art, and art is subjective.

So is entertainment television.

SoCal Scott · 02-25-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesda

So is entertainment television.

Right. And if SNL was not appealing to me, but highly regarded by others (critics and viewers), I wouldn't call it "sucky". I would state that it wasn't my cup of tea.

BTW, don't think SNL is funny in it's present state. I only watched it for TAF and Rainn Wilson.

cherry ghost · 02-25-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

Right. And if SNL was not appealing to me, but highly regarded by others (critics and viewers), I wouldn't call it "sucky". I would state that it wasn't my cup of tea.

BTW, don't think SNL is funny in it's present state. I only watched it for TAF and Rainn Wilson.

TAF?

SoCal Scott · 02-25-2007, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherry ghost

TAF?

Sorry. The Arcade Fire

kar74 · 02-25-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC Hollywood FL

The Nuni and Nooni sketch (I don't care enough to look up how they spell their names) was stupid the first time and is still stupid. SNL has let too many stupid sketches continue as regular bits, and that is why the show is no longer good. If a sketch is stupid, drop it. Don't try to find something new to do with it and hope something like a toast chair is going to click. It's stupid.

That is the one sketch they keep bringing back that I just don't get. Does anyone out there think it's actually funny?

Overall, I like Rainn and "The Office" monologue. Other than that, it was a so-so episode.

doom1701 · 02-25-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

Sorry, but I had to change your post. Music is art, and art is subjective. So, if you didn't like Arcade Fire, I can respect that. But to call them "sucky" is a bit much. Their first album, "Funeral", was hailed by critics and fans as one of the best to come out in years. They are one of the brightest stars in music today.

I don't pull this "I changed your post" crap, so I just decided to highlight the ironic hypocrisy of your post.

cherry ghost · 02-25-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

Sorry. The Arcade Fire

"Arcade Fire", not "The Arcade Fire". Some fan you are.

SoCal Scott · 02-25-2007, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doom1701

I don't pull this "I changed your post" crap, so I just decided to highlight the ironic hypocrisy of your post.

HUH??

SoCal Scott · 02-25-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherry ghost

"Arcade Fire", not "The Arcade Fire". Some fan you are.

Didn't know this thread would become so heated. Some people call them The Arcade Fire.

Alfer · 02-25-2007, 09:27 PM

It was as painful to watch as S60.

doom1701 · 02-25-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

HUH??

The only difference between calling a band "a sucky band" and "one of the brightest stars in music today" is which side of the scale your unqualified statement falls on. If Dave has to qualify his statements with "In My Opinion", you must do the same.

Personally, I think qualifying your opinions about something as subjective as music is just silly--but I'm not the one that called someone out on the carpet about it.

SoCal Scott · 02-25-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doom1701

The only difference between calling a band "a sucky band" and "one of the brightest stars in music today" is which side of the scale your unqualified statement falls on. If Dave has to qualify his statements with "In My Opinion", you must do the same.

Personally, I think qualifying your opinions about something as subjective as music is just silly--but I'm not the one that called someone out on the carpet about it.

My only point was that a whole lot of other people think The Arcade Fire (or Arcade Fire

) are a great band. That would raise them above "sucky", into "not my style".

It's not like we're talking about Kevin Fererline here.

Jesda · 02-25-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

Right. And if SNL was not appealing to me, but highly regarded by others (critics and viewers), I wouldn't call it "sucky". I would state that it wasn't my cup of tea.

So it isnt subjective, but rather objective based on popularity?

SoCal Scott · 02-25-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesda

So it isnt subjective, but rather objective based on popularity?

Oh please. Give it up. Would you call the Beatles "sucky". How about John Coltrane?

LoadStar · 02-25-2007, 10:14 PM

SNL relies much too much these days on absurd comedy... you know, the kind of sketches that make you go "what the HECK?!?" instead of actually genuinely laughing because it's funny. The Nooni sketch, the digital short this week, the sketch with the fuddy-duddy people in the office... none of them are all that funny outside of that initial reaction.

When they don't do that, they telegraph the jokes, even though the jokes are so simple that the most humor impaired individual could tell that they're telling a joke. Such is the case with... well... all of Weekend Update.

Crrink · 02-25-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

My only point was that a whole lot of other people think The Arcade Fire (or Arcade Fire

) are a great band. That would raise them above "sucky", into "not my style".

It's not like we're talking about Kevin Fererline here.

Ah, well, if that's your standard, then, you'll have to admit that N'Sync and just about all other Boy Bands are better than Arcade Fire since more people like them (as evidenced by any quantifiable measure such as album and concert sales.)

Ain't that a B?

SoCal Scott · 02-25-2007, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crrink

Ah, well, if that's your standard, then, you'll have to admit that N'Sync and just about all other Boy Bands are better than Arcade Fire since more people like them (as evidenced by any quantifiable measure such as album and concert sales.)

Ain't that a B?

Critics and listeners?

Didn't think so.

Langree · 02-26-2007, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

Oh please. Give it up. Would you call the Beatles "sucky". How about John Coltrane?

Tell ya what, if people are talking about Arcade Fire's influence on music 40 - 50 years from now you can stick them in the same league as Coltrane and The Beatles.

FYI: Critic acclaim doesn't mean jack in movies or music.

Personally I wasn't thrilled with them and if the set they used on SNL is a sample of their best, then I gotta go with Dave here and say it was sucky.

JETarpon · 02-26-2007, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

My only point was that a whole lot of other people think The Arcade Fire (or Arcade Fire

) are a great band. That would raise them above "sucky", into "not my style".

A lot of other people think Arcade Fire are sucky. That would lower them from "a great band" to "a band I like."

JETarpon · 02-26-2007, 01:48 AM

"I laughed so hard that the other guy's pee came out of my nose."

Peter000 · 02-26-2007, 02:15 AM

Hmmm... I really enjoyed SNL this week. The "office" open monologue was really funny. As was the whole Anna Nicole Smith thing. I've never liked the Nooni bit. I did like the repressed office worker skit, though. (the two mentioned so far here as "huh?" skits)

The news was especially funny this week... I historically have not liked the news segment post Ackroyd/Curtain. There have been some HORRIBLE people at that desk. But last night it clicked for me. Even the projectile vomit bit. Seth Meyer's reactions were really funny.

I've been enjoying it overall this season. Yeah, there are clunker skits, and skits that make you go "wha?", but overall it gets laughs from me.

I don't think there's EVER been a season of SNL, or even a episode with 100% funny skits.

re: Music -- I don't ever watch the musical guests. If the music doesn't grab me in the first 30 seconds, I ff. And I don't pay attention, or give a rip what the critics say, or people in general. If I like it, I'll listen. It's as simple as that.

And my definition if a band/artist sucks is if they can't sing or play in tune. That's entirely different than if the MUSIC sucks. I've heard artists who I would never listen to in a million years, because I hate the music they play, all of the sudden break form and perform something I really like. And because they're a good musician, it's on my iPod. But only that.

spikedavis · 02-26-2007, 02:40 AM

Arcade Fire is awesome. Plain and simple. I listened to FUNERAL probally a thousand times and I already love Neon Bible.

Music taste is subjective, but to call them "sucky" is just stupid. Sucky implies they have no talent. The band obviously has talent, even if their music is not your cup of tea.

old7 · 02-26-2007, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spikedavis

Arcade Fire is awesome. Plain and simple. I listened to FUNERAL probally a thousand times and I already love Neon Bible.

Music taste is subjective, but to call them "sucky" is just stupid. Sucky implies they have no talent. The band obviously has talent, even if their music is not your cup of tea.

Their talent must have been wasted on me. They were the worst band that I have seen on SNL. I couldn't get to the remote fast enough. Then just to make sure I wasn't too premature on skipping them I went back and listened to them again Sunday morning. No, I was right the first time, they sucked.

Jesda · 02-26-2007, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Scott

Oh please. Give it up. Would you call the Beatles "sucky". How about John Coltrane?

The Beatles, yes I would.

Why would you use an objective measurement to grade the quality of something you say is subjective?

My poop stinks too, but I prefer the smell of my own over yours.