TiVo Community Forum banner
1 - 20 of 71 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have there been two hosts before? I always thought this would be a good idea. Another person for the audience to see, and less work for just one host (they don't have to be in every scene).

My enthusiasm for SNL has waned a little this year. Maybe I miss all those who left this year, and the remaining cast and new members aren't quite doing it for me. But next weekend's show has me more enthused.

Post-it note Handwriting Rectangle Font Material property
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
To answer the question, yes, they have had multiple hosts a number of times before. It's often married couples or people who usually work as a double-act, like the Smothers Brothers or the Olsen Twins. In fact, this is the second time Martin & Short will co-host. The last time they also had Chevy Chase with them (not surprisingly, promoting The Three Amigos).



The strangest combo has to be George Wendt and Francis Ford Coppola.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
To answer the question, yes, they have had multiple hosts a number of times before. It's often married couples or people who usually work as a double-act, like the Smothers Brothers or the Olsen Twins. In fact, this is the second time Martin & Short will co-host. The last time they also had Chevy Chase with them (not surprisingly, promoting The Three Amigos).



The strangest combo has to be George Wendt and Francis Ford Coppola.
Thanks for the info. Yes, that last one would be an odd combo.
 

· Nice to see you
Joined
·
9,034 Posts
The strangest combo has to be George Wendt and Francis Ford Coppola.
On that episode, Francis Ford Coppola wasn't acting as a guest host per se -- he was playing himself as the ostensible director of the episode, which meant he kept interrupting sketches, "Weekend Update," and even a commercial.

Here's an article with more details about that episode, which was the first "SNL" episode I ever saw (when it was rerun in the summer of 1986): The Weirdest Episode of the Weirdest Season of ‘Saturday Night Live’
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
On that episode, Francis Ford Coppola wasn't acting as a guest host per se -- he was playing himself as the ostensible director of the episode, which meant he kept interrupting sketches, "Weekend Update," and even a commercial.

Here's an article with more details about that episode, which was the first "SNL" episode I ever saw (when it was rerun in the summer of 1986): The Weirdest Episode of the Weirdest Season of ‘Saturday Night Live’
I'll have to see if it's on Peacock.
 

· Happily Vaccinated!
Joined
·
63,535 Posts
I wish we could see the entire shows. I know they can't always show the music acts because of licensing fees, but there's no reason to not show all the sketches.
I’ve always assumed it was often music used in the sketches too.
I find it hard to believe that by 1986 they would have thought to include any music rights into the contract a guest host or performer signs to be on the show. But, I guess streaming wasn't a thing (nor was probably DVDs/BDs etc) and thus it's not included? I don't know, but I'd think it would have been smart to make the contract say something like "use of the performance is exclusive to NBC to use as it's seen fit." If a musical guest doesn't want to sign, move on to someone else. But I guess to get the biggest acts, you can't do that? I don't know. I get it with a scripted show that uses music, but for a show with a live music appearance?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I find it hard to believe that by 1986 they would have thought to include any music rights into the contract a guest host or performer signs to be on the show. But, I guess streaming wasn't a thing (nor was probably DVDs/BDs etc) and thus it's not included? I don't know, but I'd think it would have been smart to make the contract say something like "use of the performance is exclusive to NBC to use as it's seen fit." If a musical guest doesn't want to sign, move on to someone else. But I guess to get the biggest acts, you can't do that? I don't know. I get it with a scripted show that uses music, but for a show with a live music appearance?
Well it's not so much the artist themselves but the music rights companies. They're the ones that ruin the fun for everyone. I had an aunt that handled booking music acts for her local community theater. In addition to paying the acts themselves, she cut good size checks to the music rights companies. Were talking a few thousand dollars, just for her little community theater. And these were old has-been musicians from the '60s and '70s.

So I can only imagine how expensive it would be if SNL had to pay.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,703 Posts
I find it hard to believe that by 1986 they would have thought to include any music rights into the contract a guest host or performer signs to be on the show. But, I guess streaming wasn't a thing (nor was probably DVDs/BDs etc) and thus it's not included? I don't know, but I'd think it would have been smart to make the contract say something like "use of the performance is exclusive to NBC to use as it's seen fit." If a musical guest doesn't want to sign, move on to someone else. But I guess to get the biggest acts, you can't do that? I don't know. I get it with a scripted show that uses music, but for a show with a live music appearance?
Yeah. I think rather than a restriction it’s the lack of authorization. Since streaming wasn’t a thing, the rights may have been written only for that broadcast and maybe reruns. They even skip the music often for recent streaming reruns.
 

· Happily Vaccinated!
Joined
·
63,535 Posts
Well it's not so much the artist themselves but the music rights companies. They're the ones that ruin the fun for everyone. I had an aunt that handled booking music acts for her local community theater. In addition to paying the acts themselves, she cut good size checks to the music rights companies. Were talking a few thousand dollars, just for her little community theater. And these were old has-been musicians from the '60s and '70s.

So I can only imagine how expensive it would be if SNL had to pay.
I understand there's a lot more variables than I'm considering, but I also realize there are corporate lawyers who understand all of it and TV execs who realize the value of broadcasting reruns of these shows in their entirety. Back in the day, I'm sure that meant showing reruns of the shows during the summer and perhaps a way to syndicate episodes. Today, obviously they have to take streaming into account. I'd just think there could have been a way to word it that took into account any type of contingencies and would be able to satisfy all parties. Or, maybe, it's just not worth it for the networks to pay what's required and they realize they can just skip and get enough viewers to satisfy those viewers and more importantly advertisers (and yeah, I get that for streaming sometimes advertising doesn't play into it, but I'd imagine the majority of viewers watch on an advertising tier.

With all that said, I requently see show's like Ed Sullivan broadcast / stream in various places and show musical acts. I wonder how they manage to do that with all the parties involved. Different era?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I requently see show's like Ed Sullivan broadcast / stream in various places and show musical acts. I wonder how they manage to do that with all the parties involved. Different era?
Who knows. I once uploaded a SNL skit to YouTube with Peyton Manning and Will Forte in a locker room. It was a funny bit. But it's a very music dependent sketch and so that was setting off the copyright claim I got. So then I uploaded it over on Vimeo and it's been sitting there without any sort of notice at all. I know more people watch YouTube than Vimeo, but still, you think they would catch all of them.

 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top