SNL Debate Parody -- good? lackluster?

[The Chronicler]

I thought it was OK. When they shook hands Bush was like 2 feet shorter than Kerry, that was spot on. Also the bits with Bush saying, "uh......it's hard. Y'know,....it's hard work., ....we're workin' hard". I thought Kerry's hand gestures were over exagerrated, in the real debate they looked quite natural to me.

[dogtag]

1. I give it a "C" - the cast just isn't nearly as good

as previous versions.

[gmoney]

2. Kerry's lines were written before the debate

Bush's part really reflected his, uh, "performance" during the debate, but the stuff they had "Kerry" saying was nothing but stale old cliches, most of which he discredited during the debate.

[Vincardog]

3. They were doing a fair and balanced act. Poke fun at everyone not to funny

[nostamj]

4. it SUCKED

the satire on chimpy's performance was accurate.

BUT what they did to Kerry was just WRONG. he did none of those things in the debate ('medals' flip-flop, pandering)

they felt they needed to hit both, but the writers were just LAZY about it.

[The Chronicler]

7. I thought they should have made more of an issue

out of Bush's sour faces while Kerry was speaking.

[girl gone mad]

5. I was disappointed.

I thought they ignored some of the funniest things about the debate and they let Bush off pretty easy.

[doni_georgia]

6. I thought the Bush "hard work" part was great

I agree the guy doing Kerry had way too many hand movements. It's a parody, and SNL isn't what it once was.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

10. That was the only part I liked..

"we'll work on Sundays if that's what it takes"...but even that started to drag, and the Kerry lines were silly and did not reflect anything he said. I love the "pontificating Kerry" that Jon Stewart does on TDS...maybe SNL should be looking at TDS for great writing. MKJ

[AmerDem]

8. It was as lame as lame gets

SNL is awful

[milkyway]

9. They did not parody what Kerry said in the debate. They parodied what bush

said, but they could have written the Kerry part before the debate took place. They just took the stale repug talking point that Kerry flip-flops and parodied that. But not even the repugs have tried to say that Kerry flip-flopped during the debate.

My point is that nothing in the parody of Kerry was based on what actually happened Thursday night. The parody of bush, however, was based entirely on what he did on Thursday night. I guess this is a backhanded way of complimenting Kerry for providing nothing that could be lampooned afterward.

[Mojambo]

21. My take was

That they portrayed Bush as he was in the debate and portrayed Kerry as the cariacature that the Bush cronies have tried to craft.

I thought the bit where Kerry addressed his Iraq position was actually more of a hit on Bush's flip flops than Kerry's.

The Kerry was so over the top that I think most people recognized it for what it was. They did more of the same with the swift boat piece, which I thought was a great sketch.

The things that the repubs are saying about Kerry are so ludicrous that they make great fodder for sketches.

[Philostopher]

11. It was cheap.

They could have done more jokes on Bush*'s actual poor performance, for one, and for another -- the only bit they did on Kerry that he actually did was when they showed the guy doing Kerry writing notes and kind of giving Bush* the stinkeye. Which, let's admit, Kerry did. But Jesus H. Christ, as others have said -- most of the Kerry visual jokes were stale, and they only wrote one joke about Bush*. I know they didn't have very long, but cripes -- I could have written a better sketch than that!

[TomClash]

12. SNL . . .

. . . just sucks now. Like their skits, the show has been on too long.

[frylock]

13. mediocre at best, but when "bush" said their backup plan..

was to reinstall Saddam, I thought that was damn funny!

[Malikshah]

14. Please--SNL has been a shill for the regime for the last 2 yrs

and decidedly unfunny, lazy, unprofessional and pathetic to boot.

Darrel Hammond is still making Clinton jokes...nuff said.

They are so past it.

[rndmprsn]

15. it was funny in a kind of slapstick way

but in general SNL has lost all cred when it comes to being "smarter than average humor"...and that tag "not ready for prime time players" doesnt mean much when there is no edge.

daily show, mad tv, most things on comedy central are MUCH funnier and tease the brain too.

[high density]

16. I give the SNL Debate skit a D

There are plenty of things they could get laughs about John Kerry, such as the way he talks (Conan O'Brien's show does a great job at this.) But the hand gestures? That only reminded me of when Jimmy Fallon used to imitate NBC president Jeff Zucker. The exaggerated hand gestures Jimmy used always put me in stitches, but giving that trait to Kerry just didn't do anything for me.

The Bush stuff wasn't that good, either. I don't think Will Ferrell would have even been able to pull it off with that weak writing. On top of that, Will Forte failed to capture any of Bush's facial expressions which I thought was pretty sad.

[a new day]

17. Compared to the 2000 skits

with Will Farrell as * and Darrell Hammond as Gore, last night's offering couldn't get out of the starting gate.

I give it a 70. Lousy beat, and you can't dance to it.

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

18. it was lame...

but in sense that i really expected no better from them...

now if you want good comedy watch the daily show with john stewart Mon-Fri....

THAT is funny and spot on....

[tomfodw]

19. Way too long

and way not funny enough.

[jpgray]

20. SNL is horrible these days

A bunch of no-talent Harvard-educated comedy writers who don't know shit about what's funny.

[Nordic]

22. it hasn't been funny since about 1981

yet people still watch it.

I don't get it.

[Demi_Babe]

23. the only good part was Ben playing James C

[jsw_81]

24. I thought it was hilarious

Especially when they showed how Kerry literally towered over Bush at the start.

[Dr Fate]

25. The 2nd skit w/ Kerry&Tersa, Clinton &James Carville was 10 times funnier.

n/t