invisiblegt

I honestly have no idea if this has been brought up before, but I was thinking of this last night, so here goes:

I think it would be great fun to do "reunion" shows. Full length shows that feature various eras of SNL.

For instance, one show could feature Murray, Chase, Aykroyd, Curtin, etc.

Then, Carvey, Spade, Nealon, etc.

You get the idea. Bring back various characters and whatnot. I mean, granted, it would be difficult to get most of them back, but I think it would be a nice little thing.

Take a month, and air the various shows. Certainly cannot be any worse than what is currently airing...

Bill Needle

I don't know if it would be a good idea, or even feasible, but that last statement could not be truer. SNL is an embarrassment these days. The writing is utterly abysmal, and they have maybe two decent performers (Parnell and Hammond).

Goldberg74

Fixed.

Burnt Alive

Fixed.

Jack Straw

Isn't that what their movie careers were?

Charlie Goose

I don't know what it is, but for some reason people seem to remember every sketch from the Aykroyd era and the Carvey era as pure golden threads, spun on the looms of angels. There were just as many bombs back then as there are today. A good performer can elevate material, but they can't work magic. It's some of the writing staff that needs to be replaced, starting with Tina Fey. The current cast is mostly excellent. I would stack Poehler and Rudolph against Curtin and Radner any day of the week, and the same goes for someone like Fred Armisen against Chevy Chase.

tommyp007

Well...for me the "golden era" was Hartman, Lovitz, Miller, Jan Hooks, Nora Dunn, Kevin Nealon and Carvey. I never missed an episode.

klandersen

They sort of do that during the big anniversary shows, well at least the surviving members remenis and they show the old clips.

I think that is the closest they will come to a reunion.

klandersen

I agree with alot of what you say even about the fact that there were bombs during those first 15 years. People tend to forget the details about bombs just the fact that they were a bomb and so they can't remember the reason it bombed.

I believe the reasons the earlier years are more fondly remembered are (in no particular order):

1) The Aykroyd years were the first years people tend to like the originals better than later stuff.

2) Both during the Aykroyd Years and the Carvey Years there were more "hits" than "misses" with the sketches.

3) The more recent casts have had fewer "excellent" performers, or actually I believe the more recent casts have not been as good "ensembles" as the first few were. When you have an entire cast that is excellent and very entertaining even the least entertaining of the bunch look good. Unless an idividual really stinks then some of his/her flaws will be overlooked. For example Garrett Morris of the Original Cast wasn't as strong as some of the other actors but He still had moments and some great characters.

The later casts including the current cast have had a handfull of people who stand out because they are sooooooo much better performers than their fellow castmates. I don't think there are as many good ones, I also: a) Don't remember as many of the cast members names as in years past and b) Haven't watched it as often because of the fact that the more recent casts have had very few performers I like.

4) The current writing is not as good as the early years. There seem to be more "misses" and sketches that were only good or funny in the first 30 seconds of the sketch (if at all) and then the funny idea ran out and they didn't know how to end the silly thing.

On a side note, Chris Kattan and Jimmy Fallon I still get confused and don't like either one of them. Sure they have some memorable characters and there are a couple of sketches I might enjoy but mostly I don't like them. It reminds me of the "Lost Years" cast bad very very bad. Some may dissagree with me on that.

Al Padrino

For me, SNL has always been hit or miss with me. There are some absolute gems buried admist a lot of crap. And that goes for every era since the show's inception.

movieking

I'll go with Armisten, Poehler, Parnell, Rudolph and Hammond.

I don't think we need the old crew back. We need new blood, and more importantly, new writers. Bye bye Tina Fey!

Bill Needle

Armisten isn't bad, but he would be second tier on the better casts from the past. Poehler, well I just don't find her or the sketches featuring her funny. Her weekend update stint is particulalrly bad. Rudolph shows more range, but also doesn't make me laugh. But to their defense, the writing for the women, presumably mainly by the women (if past season trends still hold) is particularly awful. Parnell, on the other hand, is a fantastic straight man, and makes those in the sketches with him better even though he is not particularly funny on his own, so props to him for that. Hammond is the only cast member left since the departure of Ferrel/Oteri who is consistently entertaining on his own.

Burnt Alive

I think Poehler is great. I loved her on UCB and way back in the early years of the Conan O'Brien show, but she's just not a good fit on SNL.

And am I the only one who can't stand Parnell?

corycouger

I think the reunion shows would be great.

They should do them during November Sweeps.