It was with great sadness that I read of the passing of the sketch comedy show Mad TV. I thought the show was great, and as of late more enjoyable than Saturday Night Live. In fact, when we record both Mad TV and SNL on the DVR, I can only sit through the former in its entirety.
I think a lot of it has to do with Mad TV being less of a cult of personality than SNL. SNL has felt for a long time (and maybe forever) as a place where one potential solo character or catchphrase gets debuted after another -- on purpose, as the driving force of the show. As if the personality of the characters and the performers take center stage, as if the moment we see Will Ferrell on screen should be funny in-and-of-itself -- because it's Will Ferrell!
Now Mrs. Swan will never get her own movie.By contrast, the actors and actresses on Mad TV are chameleons, more or less egoless personages who sacrifice mugging to the camera and getting their closeup (and movie spinoff) for the greater good of the sketch. On Mad TV, the content of the sketches themselves are what drives the show, with the cult of personality coming second (or third, or never). (There were several recurring characters, like Mrs. Swan and Stuart, but they were not the focus of the show.) In that sense, I see Mad TV being far more the child of SCTV than SNL.
Anyway, sorry to see the show go. Hope the actors still get work on those spoof movies. Saw half the cast on "Meet The Spartans" yesterday and I laughed until I cried (though sometimes I just cried).
Who really loses in all this:
Secretly glad:
Honestly, I've always found MadTV to be incredibly terrible. They are great at impressions, but the skits themselves always end with a whimper rather than a bang -- no great exits. SNL undoubtedly has its problems, but MadTV appeals to a much lower common denominator.
ReplyDeletePlus, all the stupid kids in middle school loved MadTV. It appeals to that kind of population.
I watched Mad when it debuted and a few episodes after, never found it funny. Just never struck that chord. As for SNL, it hasn't been funny since like 1995. Billy Crystal, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy...hard talent to replace.
ReplyDeleteI always have liked both SNL and MADTV and I have to scan through both as they both have unfunny bits. I will say SNL really needs to diversify their cast just a bit.
ReplyDeleteI rarely watch TV anymore, let alone SNL or MAD TV, but I've seen enough episodes to get a feel for the shows, and I do agree that SNL is a "cult of personality."
ReplyDeleteI started watching SNL (infrequently, mind you) when all the performers had already established themselves and had characters and sketches that were already recognizable to the general public. When the folks I recognized started to leave and were replaced, it was like watching Ben Browder replace Richard Dean Anderson on Stargate (or something along those lines): I had to decide whether the show was worth forcing myself to wait for the new guy to prove himself.
The cast of Mad TV, on the other hand, was completely transparent to me. I can't name a single one of them, but I loved the sketches they did.
Sometimes SNL makes me laugh. Sometimes MAD TV makes me laugh. Like The Simpsons and Family Guy, they both have the same basic premise but go about things differently.
I don't think one's inherently better than the other. It's just which variety each individual prefers, and the quality of the execution of any given show.
If I'm in one of those rare moods where I actually want to watch TV, I'd sooner watch any episode of Mad than anything SNL has produced in the past, say, ten years, for no other reason than I don't need to start liking totally new people to be able to enjoy the show.
And I do like the older SNL shows with the people I recognize, but, apparently, I'm still a stupid middle school kid. ;)
Mad TV and SNL have alotta the same writers. Like someone mentioned, and I've noticed a good few people have this same response: "I haven't watched Mad TV since the show started." Like, for me...because of Comedy Central reruns, I think I've seen it up to it's third season. Now you said to keep Mad on, but cancel SNL. ...no. SNL hasn't been this funny since pre-Jimmy Fallon. I really like the cast. There's this great vibe. During Fallon years...everyone laughed, and that replaced funniness of the joke of the skit. It seemed intentional too, and that was really annoying. On that note, I don't believe I've ever seen Mad TV lose character. Maybe once, with Stewart and his "mom", who ended up laughing with him being pantsless and really milking the character (that he somehow didn't break.) When it came to satire, Mad TV was the master, but SNL is just too excellent with so much else. I'm honestly VERY surprised Mad TV wasn't cancelled years ago. Even though they changed the time slightly to compete with SNL over the years, they never stood a chance.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw this article, I was reminded of a comment by Bob Odenkirk (who was one-half of "Mr. Show", a sketch comedy series that frankly blows both Mad TV and SNL clean out of the water. Everyone should have it on DVD. Seriously. But I digress.)
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't, because that's exactly what the interviewer said to him, was, "Gee, your show is a lot better than Saturday Night Live."
His response was very illuminating. He said (and I paraphrase here), "We didn't have to accommodate commercials, guest stars, or musical numbers every week. We only had to produce ten episodes a season. We were on HBO, so we could work blue. We didn't have to work in recurring characters for the fans. If we were better than SNL, well...we should be. It'd be a dire shame if we weren't."