Really why is it that In Living Color didn't last long like SNL or Mad TV? I think SNL is funny now because of Kenan Thompson (he was in All That before), Mad TV is alright I like some of their skits. In Living Color just have my on the floor laughing.
shareThe reasons why is that "SNL" and "Mad TV' play is safe, too safe for in my opinion.
They rely on more stupid and corny humor then on the edge humor.
The other safe thing is, and I'll say it, they are too white, and I'm a white guy saying this.
"SNL" has Always had only one black person on at a time (with the exception of a couple of seasons when they had two)
"SNL" has always been in dyer need of needing more color.
I have been watching SNL since it first came on in 1975 and even though they have a moment of brilliance (Like Alec Baldwin's shweaty balls) once in a great awhile it is way too far and in between.
"In Living Color" always tried to be fresh and on the edge.
The problem with that is sooner or later the TV executive's have their fill of any and all controversy and find a way to ruin these shows.
Case in point, "Smother brothers" "Fridays" and "In Living Color"
When "SNL" first came on they where much edgier but they toned it down just enough to last all these years.
SNL will still once in awhile have an outrages or controversial skit on but not not enough to piss off the NBC brass.
I would stack "In Living Color" with the first 4 years of "SNL" any day, "In Living Color" was that good.
I gave it a 10 rating.
"Watch the Heart!......Spike...aka William The Bloody
^^ Houston, we have a nail in the coffin.
SNL was in its prime during the 70s and 80s, and that's what alotta people reminisce on these days, you rarely hear people talking about the latest SNL, because it's not that funny enough to even mention. Mad TV was in their prime in the 90s, started dithering in the early 00s, now their irrelevant.
In Living Color, case and point above, had to much color. Let's face it, race was still going on and the majority of TV watchers were white folk really. if anyone saw the Documentary on Magic vs Bird you'll see what i mean about the media/viewers. but yeah, Living Color had too much controversy, and i guess FCCs and networks need something "Mr. Sensible", so they won't have to take any heat from any of their programs.
thats my two cents
Monkey B is not a person...Monkey is a soul, that LIVES, in many bodies.
I'd just like to respectfully add to the discussion that SNL had a BRILLIANT run in the mid 90's.
This was due to casting and writing more than edginess imo. And I think the same can be said of In Living Color. When they put together the original cast, I don't think they could have done a better job if they had it to do all over again. They simply knocked it out of the park.
Now I do agree that people in the late 80's were READY to be shocked in a sketch comedy format, particularly since the "competition" at SNL had degraded to one of the worst phases of its existence. But I think ILC would have blown up regardless.
In any case, it seemed that the stars aligned and In Living Color was the right place, right time, right product to be one of the greats.
· · · ><))º>
· · ·· ><)))º> · · · ><))º>
In Living Color is better than SNL has been in the last 10+ years. Even when Will Ferrel was a regular on SNL overall it wasn't great. Now SNL is basically unwatchable. I can watch reruns of ILC all the time. I'd take Jim Carrey, David Alan Gere, Tommy Davidson, Jamie Foxx, and the Wayans over Will Ferrel, Tina Fey, Jimmy Fallon, and any of the other overrated cast members recently on SNL.
"TigerZord!"
In Living Color was funnier than SNL has been in a long time. MadTv was funny, although wasn't as good towards the very end.
shareLet's see:
* SNL was/is always broadcast on a major network. Fox was not a major network when ILC was on the air.
* SNL has always coasted on the memories of the peformances people that were on the show and left to do movies.
* SNL had an all or mostly-White cast for the majority of its run. The population of the US is majority White, so the appeal of that type of show and cast can be seen in some quarters.
* SNL, after the departure of Eddie Murphy, largely played it safe and has only done a few shows that were controversial or "edgy."
* I'm not sure how large ILC's budget was, but its failure to get strong musical guests (especially rappers) I think always hurt it. SNL has had shows were the musical act was the only reason that episode "worked."
* The Wayans family ego: Had Keenan Wayans used this show as something else besides an employment service for his family,it might have done better,IMHO. Watch the shows where the Wayans perform most of the sketches. They are noticeably of lower quality than the episodes where the burden is shared by the entire cast.
Shawn and Kim Wayans were also unnecessary additions to the show and their appearances actually slowed down the tempo.
* Bad writing: If you watch this show now, you notice how long the skits drag on and how poorly written a number of them were. While a lot of the material was "edgy" at that time, it looks tired and surprisingly tame.
Had they been able to hire some better writers and depended less on the Wayans input, the quality of the show may have improved to level that would have extended its duration on TV.
Bad films are a crime against humanity.