SNL At Home

B

Barry_Green

Moderator
Anybody watching this? It's kind of interesting to see the evolution of broadcast TV during the virus.

Last week was utterly unwatchable. Horrible home webcams for everything, no lighting, terrible echo. A thorough embarrassment.

This week it's very different. Clearly they sent out memos (or probably crews) to each cast member's house, teaching them basic audio techniques. They also appear to be shooting lots of stuff in front of greenscreens. The keying is horrific, reminiscent of 1990's cable TV commercials, but so what -- it's opened them up to doing things they couldn't do last episode. Virtual backgrounds and tons of graphics and post-production are making it at least look as good as a decent YouTube video, so much better than the webcam look.

Looks like lighting has been upgraded too; nothing great but a huge improvement from last week.

However, what the HELL is with those god-awful ringlights??!?!! I hate those things, the reflection in the eyes makes everyone look like a freaking alien. It's so unnatural. Those things are the worst for eye reflections...

Anyway, while it's still a far cry from the production values of seasons past, it's gratifying to see that they're definitely making big improvements over their initial attempt, and it might prove interesting to see how network broadcast standards evolve under the current restrictions.
 
The ring lights are awful.

Like V for Vendetta, they mailed out ring lights to everyone.
 
Ring lights are not a universal lighting solution. I've seen cool shots using them, but I don't understand why everyone likes them. Why not just put an LED panel above camera? Maybe the advantage of a ring light is everybody knows where to put it?

Interesting to see creative solutions to the current predicament, but I can't wait to get back to normal.

Cool ring light photo, albeit intentionally unnatural:
3018.jpg
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
...

Last week was utterly unwatchable. Horrible home webcams for everything, no lighting, terrible echo. A thorough embarrassment.

This week it's very different. Clearly they sent out memos (or probably crews) to each cast member's house, teaching them basic audio techniques.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen SNL. I did watch two episodes of Jimmy Fallon (unwatchable). I can't figure out what's going on with these home broadcasts. I'm wondering if;
a - they're doing it because they are the dumbest sumbiches in the world
b - they want to protect the crew and show how important they are by doing bad shows without them
c - they're putting on a show for the audience that their home just like us and bad picture and sound are a part of a purposeful production value to show they're no longer in Kansas.

These guys have been mic'd up and lit every night for years and suddenly no one knows how to use a mic, place a camera, or set a light. Suddenly there is no director or other crew to talk to them over the phone about how to set the camera, mic, or lights. It's nonsense.
 
Generally speaking, I dislike ring lights. I agree with Barry, they make the person look like an alien or animal. Now, can this be used to good effect and in certain specific situations to give you a look? Yes, absolutely. And they can even be used in more traditional scenarios, as well, as long as care is taken. But for general use and generally speaking, I don’t like them.

I did have to use one last year for some interviews and I actually liked what we ended up creating. But a big part of that was the way that we lit with it. We were probably at least 5 feet back from the subjects and it behaved more like a traditional source with more of a point reflection in the eyes instead of a “halo”.

attachment.php
 
Paul F said:
I haven't seen SNL. I did watch two episodes of Jimmy Fallon (unwatchable). I can't figure out what's going on with these home broadcasts. I'm wondering if;
a - they're doing it because they are the dumbest sumbiches in the world
b - they want to protect the crew and show how important they are by doing bad shows without them
c - they're putting on a show for the audience that their home just like us and bad picture and sound are a part of a purposeful production value to show they're no longer in Kansas.

These guys have been mic'd up and lit every night for years and suddenly no one knows how to use a mic, place a camera, or set a light. Suddenly there is no director or other crew to talk to them over the phone about how to set the camera, mic, or lights. It's nonsense.
Click to expand...

Had a discussion with someone the other day on this very subject. It’s two things: 1) Union protection of the crews(in union shops) and 2) It’s a look. “We’re here at our home doing this by ourselves just like we’re telling every else to do”.

But mostly the look, because they could bring a bare bones crew in, in protective gear and set-up a half decent remote camera set-up. BUT they want it to look like the same crap that Bob and Susan and Kevin and Jane and every other schmuck are doing on Zoom from home.

The NFL Draft was God Awful, despite being the most viewed draft ever(hello captive audience starved for anything sports related). Even Goodell’s shot was bad(he was soft)despite actually having crew there. There were a few decent analyst shots off of real cameras(just meaning it was in focus and using a real transmission path).
 
I do apologize to anyone who uses ring lights.

The comment was meant to be contextual to the SNL at Home series.
 
Ring lights are a Roger Deakins specialty. He uses huge overhead contraptions that give a full coverage of the subject. When the camera/light distances and the exposure are properly coordinated, it's a fetching combo, a large source that wraps around the face.

As to these past few weeks in terms of comedy : there's been a long, long, long, long debate about how to act/film/tape in sitcoms that are filmed in front of live audiences (regardless of whether there's an additional laugh track and other effects added in post). The debate goes like this - you can play to the camera or you can play to your audience. Camera requires a lot more subtlety, as is the case with one camera TV and film. Live theater allows for much wilder expressions. (technically, there's a middle ground, as was the case with the Marx Brothers films, where they shot really wide in the Groucho-Chico sketches, as if they were on stage, but then moved in for the Graucho-Margaret Dumont bits).

SNL has historically played to the live audience. When it had a top notch cast, many of whom transitioned to the movies, they could have probably done these TV remotes fairly easily. Alas ...

PS. Which stands for "personal story".

We came to the US 41 years ago this week. In TV, it was the "who shot JR?" season but the most significant part of it was the writers strike which lasted deep into the fall. All networks then had no choice but to air nothing but reruns and, so from the summer to the late fall, SNL kept showing its classic episodes with Chevy Chase, Belushi, Ackroyd, et al. And that's how I tried learning English ... by watching the "Two Wild and Crazy Guys" from Czechoslovakia and their chase of the American Foxes.
 
A lot of tubers and casters have much better production value. So, i find it odd that SNL and other shows are going so basic.

Occasionally, SNL cast members will say how it is weird without an audience, and you begin to realize how much they relied on audience laughter to appear funny.

Also, i watched a few older sketches, and it is odd to see in a pandemic how often SNL relied on getting inappropriately close, kissing or licking, and spitting a beverage or other things onto another cast member.

All i can say, is maybe this time will really challenge the writers and performers, as they re-evaluate funny.

The only late show i’ve seen that feels almost exactly the same is John Oliver.
 
James0b57 said:
... Occasionally, SNL cast members will say how it is weird without an audience, and you begin to realize how much they relied on audience laughter to appear funny. .
Click to expand...
Back in the early 1990's, an ex-friend of mine (she unfriended me on Facebook back in 2016) worked for a syndicated sitcom. As she was a budding writer and ended up writing a spec for the show (it was light years beyond awful), she picked up an edited tape of one of the show episodes to show around (the show hadn't aired yet at that point). The tape was pre-SFX. The young actors, most of whom were unknown, were pretty good and several of them went on to have nice careers. The writers also had some impressive resumes ... but there was no reaction from the audience whatsoever.

It went something like this -

 
DLD said:
Live theater allows for much wilder expressions. (technically, there's a middle ground, as was the case with the Marx Brothers films, where they shot really wide in the Groucho-Chico sketches, as if they were on stage, but then moved in for the Graucho-Margaret Dumont bits).
Click to expand...

I love the Marx Brothers and I see what you're saying, but their brand of comedy was so extravagant that even their subtlest facial expressions could be seen from a mile away.
 
On a related note, I think the music industry is going to have some nice ideas moving forward.

These home concerts/shows/tributes are pulling in some money.
 
DLD said:
Back in the early 1990's, an ex-friend of mine (she unfriended me on Facebook back in 2016) worked for a syndicated sitcom. As she was a budding writer and ended up writing a spec for the show (it was light years beyond awful), she picked up an edited tape of one of the show episodes to show around (the show hadn't aired yet at that point). The tape was pre-SFX. The young actors, most of whom were unknown, were pretty good and several of them went on to have nice careers. The writers also had some impressive resumes ... but there was no reaction from the audience whatsoever.

It went something like this -

Click to expand...
oof
 
DLD said:
Ring lights are a Roger Deakins specialty. He uses huge overhead contraptions that give a full coverage of the subject. When the camera/light distances and the exposure are properly coordinated, it's a fetching combo, a large source that wraps around the face.

As to these past few weeks in terms of comedy : there's been a long, long, long, long debate about how to act/film/tape in sitcoms that are filmed in front of live audiences (regardless of whether there's an additional laugh track and other effects added in post). The debate goes like this - you can play to the camera or you can play to your audience. Camera requires a lot more subtlety, as is the case with one camera TV and film. Live theater allows for much wilder expressions. (technically, there's a middle ground, as was the case with the Marx Brothers films, where they shot really wide in the Groucho-Chico sketches, as if they were on stage, but then moved in for the Graucho-Margaret Dumont bits).

SNL has historically played to the live audience. When it had a top notch cast, many of whom transitioned to the movies, they could have probably done these TV remotes fairly easily. Alas ...

PS. Which stands for "personal story".

We came to the US 41 years ago this week. In TV, it was the "who shot JR?" season but the most significant part of it was the writers strike which lasted deep into the fall. All networks then had no choice but to air nothing but reruns and, so from the summer to the late fall, SNL kept showing its classic episodes with Chevy Chase, Belushi, Ackroyd, et al. And that's how I tried learning English ... by watching the "Two Wild and Crazy Guys" from Czechoslovakia and their chase of the American Foxes.
Click to expand...

I like to call it overacting and it is one of the big reasons I dislike live theater. I mean, I guess it's hard to be subtle when you're supposed to be projecting to the guy in the back row... After a lifetime of watching TV and movies where the performance is solely for the camera, most live theater just doesn't do it for me.
 
Yes, I noticed the same thing. Brad Pitt even went for the film look with his camera. Either he has a nice camera and some lights or they sent a crew to his house. There is only so long they can do this. It may be cheaper but advertisers will probably bail on television for good if this becomes a new normal.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Yes, I noticed the same thing. Brad Pitt even went for the film look with his camera. Either he has a nice camera and some lights or they sent a crew to his house. There is only so long they can do this. It may be cheaper but advertisers will probably bail on television for good if this becomes a new normal.
Click to expand...

Apparently Jarred Land of RED shot the Pitt segment using a prototype Komodo camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top