Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-06-03 12:12 PM
Original message |
|
Gotta say Laugh-in. SNL just doesn't have the edginess or wackiness.
|
lpbk2713
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-06-03 12:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
But TW3 was the forerunner.
|
On the Road
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-06-03 12:26 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Another Vote for Laugh-In |
|
They were subversive. SNL only pretended to be.
|
Old and In the Way
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-06-03 12:40 PM
Response to Original message |
3. The original SNL was cutting edge. |
|
LOaugh-In was good, in a mainly establsihment type of way. SNL really did break new ground, IMHO.
|
chaumont58
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-06-03 12:48 PM
Response to Original message |
4. The 1968 Laugh-ins were the funniest shows I have ever seen |
|
I don't know if that's the year is started or not, but that is when I first saw it, and I have never seen anything to even come close.
Sock it to me!
|
Syrinx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-06-03 01:48 PM
Response to Original message |
5. first five seasons of SNL were it! |
|
The most original, daring television experiment in history. Lorne Michaels was a fucking genius. Too bad he sold out. It became more important to hang out with Paul Simon in the Hamptons than to produce great television.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:06 AM
Response to Original message |