Poll of the Day > Do you think this SNL skit is funny?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I think it is hilarious, but people in the comments are split almost 50/50 between loving it and hating it. A lot of the haters don't seem to understand the point of it. In fact if I didnt read the comments I wouldn't have guessed so many people would have so much trouble understanding something i see as being fairly straightforward. However it is possible you get it and still dont find it funny, and thats perfectly okay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwU9DupgA_E" data-time="

the point is he goes into a new class for the first time, tries to act like he knows everybody and be the class "bad boy" when he doesnt know anybody at all and just makes an ass of himself. because we all knew this kid in high school, but the "twist" is its only his first day. the fact the audience doesnt laugh for the first few minutes of him going on isn't him bombing its intentional and fits the scene.

it was odd. it was funnier than most of there skits.
---

I dont even mean some sort of deeper meaning, however somebody posted one on youtube that I also wasnt thinking of. not even like that, just him "bombing" is intentional to segway into the second part of the joke where you realize its his first day and he just made an ass of himself while trying to act cool.

now, for deep subtext the writers may or may not have intended, that I didnt pick up on(though makes sense after reading), and i dont expect others to pick up on as well:

"This whole sketch reads as a satire of the pressures put on new SNL cast members, to bring something new to the table.

Watch it again.
In the entire first three minutes, Luke basically runs through every hack joke you've heard from dudes on SNL - from the 70's to the late 90's. ANY of those jokes would feel at home, coming from a young Adam Sandler or David Spade.

That first three minutes of silence proves how much SNL has grown over the past few decades, and how those types of jokes are dated and irrelevant.

And in Luke's FIRST sketch, with an original character, it's THE worst most hack jokes that dudes have overplayed for years.
It's a mirror to the overuse of "white dude jokes" in sketch comedy.
It's also a mirror to the internet reaction to Luke, and people's expectations.
Just look at what Luke keeps repeating:
"I just wanted to make a splash."

Everyone in the comments is acting like the back half of the sketch wasn't written before they started the sketch.
The entire back half of the sketch is the cast explaining how those earlier jokes are outdated, and why they aren't funny.

This sketch is also SNL admitting it's own past mistakes, and how it caused these played out jokes.
It's also demonstrating how adding Luke doesn't symbolize a return to those style of jokes - they're still irrelevant.

I mean, if you're not convinced, look at the set!
They're using the classroom set from their Gilly sketches! They haven't used this set in ages -- but there was a solid 3-5 period of SNL, where it felt like I saw this set every week.
In a sketch where they're calling out their own played out jokes from the past, they're using a played out setting."

I stopped watching SNL. They're pretty formulaic.

This person is doing something weird and not particularly clever repeatedly, laugh now.

argonautweakend posted...

the point is he goes into a new class for the first time, tries to act like he knows everybody and be the class "bad boy" when he doesnt know anybody at all and just makes an ass of himself. because we all knew this kid in high school, but the "twist" is its only his first day. the fact the audience doesnt laugh for the first few minutes of him going on isn't him bombing its intentional and fits the scene.

If you have to explain the joke then it is not funny.

argonautweakend posted...

I dont even mean some sort of deeper meaning, however ...

And then you go on to post a wall of text. Again, jokes should be funny even if you understand the context or not, especially in sketch comedy.
---

I dont really feel like this joke needs explaining as i dont think its a difficult concept but upon reading the comments to the video so many people dont seem to get it which baffles me. The guy going 3 minutes without a single laugh is intenional.

That wall of text doesnt even matter in all this as it was just somebodies speculation as to a deeper meaning.

I stopped watching after the first minute because it wasn't funny. A sketch comedy skit that takes over 3 minutes to tell a joke doesn't sound well thought out, you've missed your chance by that point.
---

argonautweakend posted...

now, for deep subtext the writers may or may not have intended, that I didnt pick up on(though makes sense after reading), and i dont expect others to pick up on as well:

Nah, it's not that deep. It's SNL. They've always been face value humor

tbh, oddly enough just watched that yesterday. The first part really drags (because it's a long, unfunny set-up), but it was worth for it the payoff. "First off, my name isn't 'Mister C,' it's Mr. Nytehart. Second, this is your first day. You don't know anybody here." as well as mentioning he didn't even get the class right After that, it starts to drag a little when each classmate talks to him (Granted, S. Ronan (pink haired chick) was cute as always and the black student's dialog was funny.) And, of course, it was even funnier when the actual lovable delinquent shows at the end.

As for all that talk of looking for deeper meaning, it *might* have worked better had he known the classmates better. After all, a lot of people coming into a tv show will know a lot about the actors and think that they can build an instant rapport despite them not knowing the newcomer
---

argonautweakend posted...

In the entire first three minutes, Luke basically runs through every hack joke you've heard from dudes on SNL - from the 70's to the late 90's. ANY of those jokes would feel at home, coming from a young Adam Sandler or David Spade.

That first three minutes of silence proves how much SNL has grown over the past few decades, and how those types of jokes are dated and irrelevant.

It's not the jokes, David Spade is actually funny. They could have brought him in, gave him the setting, let him improvise through it and it would have worked.

Awkward doesn't equate to funny for me. It was satisfying that everyone called him out for acting like a jerk. But neither the antics nor the reaction were comical to me.
---

argonautweakend posted...

I dont even mean some sort of deeper meaning

I've been thinking about what they might be trying to say with this as well. It seems to me it could be a commentary on offense takers. Social media has been inundated with people made to apologize for something they said because certain people took it to mean something that wasn't intended. For this narrative the character doesn't know these people and doesn't realize what he's doing is much of an issue for them.

However instead of being a commentary on offense takers the skit is siding with the offense takers. The character's antics are an exaggeration in that he doesn't know the others yet somehow targets them with something specific to each. This reduces the ambiguity of the antics and makes them appear more intentional. Even before revealing their specific issues the antics are inappropriate for the setting. This gets the audience to sympathize with the tendency of offense takers to ignore context and assume that the character just should have known better.

If the setting were changed to where the antics weren't so out of place that would have left them more open to interpretation and made the skit less emotionally manipulative. Say if they were at a party then everyone there would accept the possibility that someone might say or do something that bothers them without meaning to. Thus the offended would share responsibility in their reaction to the offense as opposed to placing all the blame on the character. Though it still wouldn't have been entertaining to watch.
---

He doesn't target the other classmates with something specific, it was an unfortunate accident.

He says stuff only to find out later it was the worst possible thing he could have said or done, which compounds his misery. After all, he doesn't know these people which is revealed later on. Meaning his antics were intentional in the general sense, but he didnt know that smoking around a kid with breathing issues, and throwing away a dietician-picked lunch would be the worst thing to happen to that particular student. that was revealed at the end to even further make him look like an ass, but even as the teacher says, he could recover later on. Maybe he actually is a cool kid that had one overthought, embarrassing, cringeworthy first day, but once he gets to know people, etc.

The antics are inappropriate for the setting, but in a lot of high school films there is that one "badass" "cool kid" who acts like a jerk like this but pulls it off(the guy at the end), so it makes sense in that regard. This guy is just ramping it up to 11 because its his first day and he wanted to make a splash.

The characters do imply he should have known better in the sense of "what the heck are you doing" as in nobody should do those things, such as pick up somebodies lunch and throw it in the trash, insult the janitors wife, etc.

for the record the only unfunny part of this sketch, imo, is "yarmulka dot comika"

It was ok. It definitely highlighted how one should not act.
---

I've seen this sketch before. I think it was somewhat recent, too...
---

Even the audience doesn't really understand when to laugh.

I watched it, I'm just going to point out how right I am here despite missing about 10 years of SNL

Yellow posted...

This person is doing something weird and not particularly clever repeatedly, laugh now.

argonautweakend posted...

I dont even mean some sort of deeper meaning, however somebody posted one on youtube that I also wasnt thinking of. not even like that, just him "bombing" is intentional to segway into the second part of the joke where you realize its his first day and he just made an ass of himself while trying to act cool.

now, for deep subtext the writers may or may not have intended, that I didnt pick up on(though makes sense after reading), and i dont expect others to pick up on as well:

"This whole sketch reads as a satire of the pressures put on new SNL cast members, to bring something new to the table.

Watch it again.
In the entire first three minutes, Luke basically runs through every hack joke you've heard from dudes on SNL - from the 70's to the late 90's. ANY of those jokes would feel at home, coming from a young Adam Sandler or David Spade.

That first three minutes of silence proves how much SNL has grown over the past few decades, and how those types of jokes are dated and irrelevant.

And in Luke's FIRST sketch, with an original character, it's THE worst most hack jokes that dudes have overplayed for years.
It's a mirror to the overuse of "white dude jokes" in sketch comedy.
It's also a mirror to the internet reaction to Luke, and people's expectations.
Just look at what Luke keeps repeating:
"I just wanted to make a splash."

Everyone in the comments is acting like the back half of the sketch wasn't written before they started the sketch.
The entire back half of the sketch is the cast explaining how those earlier jokes are outdated, and why they aren't funny.

This sketch is also SNL admitting it's own past mistakes, and how it caused these played out jokes.
It's also demonstrating how adding Luke doesn't symbolize a return to those style of jokes - they're still irrelevant.

I mean, if you're not convinced, look at the set!
They're using the classroom set from their Gilly sketches! They haven't used this set in ages -- but there was a solid 3-5 period of SNL, where it felt like I saw this set every week.
In a sketch where they're calling out their own played out jokes from the past, they're using a played out setting."

Why are you copy-pasting youtube comments?

I'm not sure why people are looking for deeper meaning in something that seems like it was just meant to be funny, but mostly bombs because the punchline drags on almost as long as the set-up. SNL isn't exactly about deep deconstructions of society. After all, just look that the relatively shallow parody of the Kavanaugh hearings they ran that same week.
---

SNL hasn't been funny since Eddie Murphy left
---

I haven't watched SNL in years. It seems like I haven't missed much.
---

That was cringe inducing. Awful. SNL is the lowest form of humor
---

The audience knows when to laugh, which is why they didnt for the first few minutes. its bad on purpose.

i also copy/pasted that youtube comment because its intelligent and relevant to the discussion. I dont know if the SNL writers(mainly, the guy in the sketch luke null, in his first appearance as an original character) meant any of that, but to me it actually makes sense. A couple of people in the comments said something similar just not as long winded.

I thought it was funny. Kenan gets a lot of unsung roles on the show. He's great.
---

Eh, the punchline twist of it being his first day could have been funny, if Kenan was capable of acting. Nothing quite like a character angrily yelling while clearly trying to stifle a smirk.
---

argonautweakend posted...

The audience knows when to laugh, which is why they didnt for the first few minutes. its bad on purpose.

Yeah, it's when Lorne Michaels steps out into the wings and says, "Please laugh." =p

tbh, given how many awful gags have received a strong audience reaction, it certainly does seem a matter of the "audience knowing when to laugh" (or being told) rather than an actual, spontaneous reaction to the material.

Far-Queue posted...

I thought it was funny. Kenan gets a lot of unsung roles on the show. He's great.

He's a funny guy, but I'm not sure he's ever been -- or ever will be -- strong enough on his own, which is why his success in movies has been limited. The few films he's starred in (Good Burger, Fat Albert) had a lukewarm reception, which I'm sure also hasn't helped.

MisterPengy posted...

Eh, the punchline twist of it being his first day could have been funny, if Kenan was capable of acting. Nothing quite like a character angrily yelling while clearly trying to stifle a smirk.

Given how long he's been acting, you'd think he'd be over those amateurish breaks (while he's nowhere near as bad as Pete Davidson, Pete has the excuse of being high the whole time). His delivery was still funny, though. Plus a deadpan reaction is funnier than anger and I don't think he was actually going for anger there.

He's usually cast in straight man roles, but his inability to keep a straight face undercuts his performances.
---

MisterPengy posted...

Eh, the punchline twist of it being his first day could have been funny, if Kenan was capable of acting. Nothing quite like a character angrily yelling while clearly trying to stifle a smirk.

Yeah he's not a good actor. That was probably the weakest point of the whole thing for me