Anyone hear about the banned SNL skit

[Laugh O. Grams]

Pat Dollard removed the SNL skit. Wonder if some crybaby made hom close it. I guess this might be an example of the freedom of speech squad, er, truth squad, at work? It's not available anywhere.

McCainworld: where copyright infringement = crybabying and 90% agreement with the status quo = maverick.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Hey didn't American Carol beat Bill Maher's movie. Disclaimer: I have no plans to see American Carol and I like Bill Maher

Hey! Me too!!

 

[LuvDuke]

McCainworld: where copyright infringement=crybabying and 90% agreement with the status quo = maverick.

Dah Dah Daaaah ........... he said copyright? Must be code for Reverend Wright.

 

[rie'smom]

McCainworld: where copyright infringement = crybabying and 90% agreement with the status quo = maverick.

SNL had to remove it too. Since they own the copyright, I don't think that was the problem. Nice try.
I'll stick to:

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

SNL had to remove it too. Since they own the copyright, I don't think that was the problem. Nice try.
I'll stick to:

So based on "speculation" from a few of our DISboards chums, you now definitively conclude that they had to take it down. That's rich!

 

[bsnyder]

So based on "speculation" from a few of our DISboards chums, you now definitively conclude that they had to take it down. That's rich!

Why do you think they took it down?

 

[sandybobandy]

I saw it. Thought it was very funny (though it started to get a little long). SNL lately has had a bit of a problem with figuring out how to wrap up skits. I adore this cast with the exception of the new girl Casey Somethingorother. The new guy Bobby Moynihan is growing on me, but the girl is useless.

I couldn't agree with the bolded part more. I was just telling this to my husband! The ending is always like, "whaaa?"

 

[rie'smom]

So based on "speculation" from a few of our DISboards chums, you now definitively conclude that they had to take it down. That's rich!

Speculation is rampant across the internet. Some of us read beyond the DIS.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Why do you think they took it down?

I haven't the foggiest...why assume the most cynically sinister?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Speculation is rampant across the internet. Some of us read beyond the DIS.

Speculation is speculation. The fact that someone would somehow consider speculation, no matter how rampant, as proof shows a very un-American "guilty until proven innocent" tilt to their world view...

 

[rie'smom]

Speculation is speculation. The fact that someone would somehow consider speculation, no matter how rampant, as proof shows a very un-American "guilty until proven innocent" tilt to their world view...

I'm using the circumstantial evidence to deduce my theory. Perry Mason

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I'm using the circumstantial evidence to deduce my theory. Perry Mason

I would say that if reports came out suggesting that the network had crushed this skit before it aired, you might have a leg to stand on. However, the fact that NBC actually broadcast it on SNL kinda blows the whole nefarious "cover-up" theory out of the water. The uproar is silliness, plain and simple. JMHO...

 

[bsnyder]

I haven't the foggiest...why assume the most cynically sinister?

I'm actually not. My first reaction, when I saw this last night, wasn't anything at all sinister. I thought it must be some technical glitch. But technical glitches eventually get sorted out, so that's definitely not the answer.

So now I'm back to considering some of the alternatives to technical glitches.

I'm asking you because I want some alternatives to the "sinister". Even if it's some sort of threatened legal action, which still is a likely alternative, I guess. I don't really know enough about that area of the law to know if it's likely. But surely someone here on the DIS does.

But, if it turns out to be the cynically sinister (and I don't think it will), would that be a problem, for you?

 

[bsnyder]

I would say that if reports came out suggesting that the network had crushed this skit before it aired, you might have a leg to stand on. However, the fact that NBC actually broadcast it on SNL kinda blows the whole nefarious "cover-up" theory out of the water. The uproar is silliness, plain and simple. JMHO...

Why?

What if they took down all the Palin parodies, and left up all the other ones? Would you be remotely curious?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I'm actually not. My first reaction, when I saw this last night, wasn't anything at all sinister. I thought it must be some technical glitch. But technical glitches eventually get sorted out, so that's definitely not the answer.

So now I'm back to considering some of the alternatives to technical glitches.

I'm asking you because I want some alternatives to the "sinister". Even if it's some sort of threatened legal action, which still is a likely alternative, I guess. I don't really know enough about that area of the law to know if it's likely. But surely someone here on the DIS does.

But, if it turns out to be the cynically sinister (and I don't think it will), would that be a problem, for you?

Yes, it would be...

 

[bsnyder]

Yes, it would be...

The uproar is silliness, plain and simple. JMHO...

I agree, if there's some logical explaination for it. So why is NBC feeding the uproad and the silliness?

If it's some sort of legal action, why wouldn't NBC just say that?

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

Why banned? I saw it and thought it was funny. I wonder if they'll show it in reruns.

I haven't watched SNL in years, but I thought Saturday night's show was very funny. I am still laughing over "The Lawrence Welk Show" skit (which was wrong on many levels, but still made me laugh). Anne Hathaway did a good job overall.

Here it is for those that missed it:

http://patdollard.com/2008/10/it-is-here-the-banned-snl-skit-cannot-hide-from-louie/

That Lawrence Welk skit makes me cry every time I watch it, it is so funny. Wrong, of course..but I can't help it..it cracks me up..Kristen Wiig just keeps getting better and better..

 

[Geoff_M]

I'm asking you because I want some alternatives to the "sinister". Even if it's some sort of threatened legal action, which still is a likely alternative, I guess.

If I had to guess, I think the depiction of the Sandler's had something to do with it. In the skit, the on-screen text for the Sandler's read:

I don't think the Sandler's, who are private citizens, would think being labeled "should be shot" was very funny, and I can see that their lawyer may assert that it goes beyond the bounds of satire or parody. Ad Age magazine has asked for an explanation from NBC, but NBC has not returned their calls.

 

[rie'smom]

Someone must have hacked the NBC.com site or else a sneaky programmer was able to post this on NBC.com because when I searched SNL bail out skit on NBC,this came up:

 

[missypie]

The skit was very funny. I guess maybe you shouldn't say "people who should be shot" but it was funny.

We thought it was one of the funniest SNLs in a long time - debates, press conference, Lawrence Welk, the less provocative songs of....

I held a cat
I touched a shake
I ate a snack
I saw a boat