Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

Lorne Michaels really seems to have a talent for understanding talent and seeing the bigger picture in it all. The more I read about Conan getting Late Night to replace Letterman, the more I thought, “what kind of madman would put some writer like that on such a perch? Madness!” But Conan is arguably one of the greatest.

I feel like a lot of industry people are successful because of connections or simply through volume. But Lorne’s bibliography really makes it hard to think the same.

P.S. Pete Davidson has quite a story to tell and I enjoy him at times, but I still don’t understand what he was doing on SNL. It was like they just pulled “that guy” from the friend group who said, “pffft I could do that.” Improv is one of those things that really looks easy but there’s ridiculous depth and talent to being consistently good at it.

View on HN

> I still don’t understand what he was doing on SNL. It was like they just pulled “that guy” from the friend group who said, “pffft I could do that.” Improv...

SNL isn't improvised. Also I've never heard anyone claim Pete Davidson has improv ability.

SNL players are often drawn from those who are experienced in improv. In fact, as a live show, the players are often forced to improv due to circumstances, and you may find that some of the most famous, funniest lines/scenes were improv.

The writers change up the script until the last second, anyway, so the players are usually just as surprised at their lines as anyone.

As a recent example, "Lisa from Temecula", there was much discussion whether Ego's retort "oh, cuz we Black?!" was improv, and also, as a sketch that was nearly cut from the lineup, they decided to run it with a hilarious shaking table, which was the source of Pascal's surprise and laughter, and infectious to the rest of the cast.

I've always heard that Lorne is famously against improvisation while shooting. There have been numerous examples over the years of people getting in trouble for doing it. Here's one article [1]. There are very minor changes that don't seem to cause problems. Bill Hader talked about Fred Armisen's delivery of "What are you doing here?" in the first Californians sketch being different when shooting causing him to have trouble keeping from laughing.

This article [2] says, “Oh, ’cause we Black?” was added ahead of the run-through, but camera direction changed and not everyone was informed who the camera would be showing as it was delivered.

[1] https://www.slashfilm.com/1225418/why-lorne-michaels-doesnt-...

[2] https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/02/snl-lisa-from-t...

Ah, thanks for pointing this out! Yeah, I was unaware of how little of it there really is. It does make a lot of sense, of course. And the cast is often maligned for their poor eye contact and wooden reading of the cue cards, so it's clear to see how they're under orders to stick to the scripts. Considering how much improv background some of them have, they may begin to resent that!

My favorite example of improv that made it to air is Space, The Infinite Frontier: Dr. Kent Wahler. Here https://youtu.be/gQDqRlMeJ4U?si=rRNKw2TZyyV3xcLR&t=177 is when Will Ferrel realizes he improvised too much and Jeff Goldblum is too confused, and steers back.

SNL hires a lot of people with improv background because that's where comedy makers are. They hire just as many people from stand-up backgrounds, because that's the other place comedians are. Last year's new four were all stand-up, like Pete Davidson.

Improv players are in a good position because being able to create comedy in the moment (improv) is a good proxy for being able to create comedy over a week (SNL). Writing is so important to SNL that players must either write themselves or partner with a writer to get airtime.

Some of the best moments were improvised, for sure, but they're not planning on it (obviously) and they're not depending on it. The sibling comment said enough about that.

> The writers change up the script until the last second, anyway, so the players are usually just as surprised at their lines as anyone.

Yeah, it's written. They're reading the lines. Not improvised. Obviously they're bringing creativity to it in their acting, but they've heard it in pitch meeting, they've contributed to writing it, they've heard it at table read, they've heard it at dress rehearsal, maybe a line on the cue card has changed.

There are moments of improvisation, but SNL is emphatically not improv.

Pete Davidson is young, cool, and funny. Why wouldn’t he be on SNL?

His voice is very personal and very unlike the standard writing on SNL.

At first I couldn't figure out why he was cast. But once he started doing his material on Weekend Update about his own life, it was clear that he brought something new and different.

Pete Davidson is funny? I just assumed SNL pivoted away from comedy or something.

Yeah it’s strange. I think SNL peaked when I was 19 and my dad says the exact same thing about when he was 19.

It’s had multiple good and bad runs, usually lasting a few years each—the show’s been on a long time—so rather than this being one of those “everyone thinks X was best when they were age Y” you could both kinda be right.

I agree that he's young.

Conan replaced Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, not Letterman.

Conan famously replaced Letterman on Late Night, not the Tonight Show, in 1993, and built his empire on that show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Night_with_Conan_O%27Brie...

Conan has been cringe and terrible since he got a TV show. He wrote a few decent Simpsons episodes.

I disagree that he is terrible, but I do appreciate your comment, because he was that sort of cringe comedy before I had a name for it, now that I think of it.

No one person writes an episode of TV, at least not the Simpsons.

I can’t stand Leno or Conan and like Pete Davidson. That’s all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com