Talk:SNL Digital Shorts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Avril 14th or Nike Commercial "Magnet"?

The music backing "Iran So Far" is listed in the article as being licensed from "Avril 14th" by Aphex Twin. However, it appears strikingly similar to the music created by Kathy Fisher from Fisher The Band in the Nike commercial with Lance Armstrong "Magnet" which can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXWgGrEtFWg

Can someone please explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.197.58 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely Avril 14th. You can preview it here if you have iTunes. 70.94.37.5 02:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

-Yes I know, but what do you make of the similarity to the song linked? Is there also a connection between Avril 14th and that composition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.197.58 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that the piano portions in "Magnet" do contain similar motifs to Avril 14th, but Iran So Far is absolutely a direct sample. It's not worth mentioning in the article that the music sounds similar to a Nike commercial. 70.94.10.49 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

-I def. agree and never suggested that, sorry if writing it here implies that, I'm not very familar with this forum but was wondering if anyone had any insight on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.197.58 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion on how to improve the article (what should be added, removed, reworded, etc). 70.94.10.49 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date linkifying

What's the rule on whether dates should be linked? The years in the air shorts for 2007 are links, but not the years in the other tables. I think the tables look better with them linked, but I can't find a rule in the style guide. But I did find that years in section headers shouldn't be links. (See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context) (PS: forgive me if I'm not following the correct talk format, I've never used a talk page before) Afoglia 04:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting

I think these shorts should be listed by date, not by title. It just seems to make more sense for an encyclopedic article - episodes of shows are listed by date. Without objection, I'll make the change in a few days. Alvis 06:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You have my support. -- Viewdrix 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response section?

Can anyone find criticism or praise for the shorts? They gained plenty of publicity after Lazy Sunday, but overall, no one's really stated whether they're good on the whole or not, quality-wise or for-the-show-wise. The closest I've seen is a "debate" in Entertainment Weekly that The Lonely Island put on their website, but I hesitate to use that because it's a scan of a magazine, which may be slightly illegal. -- Viewdrix 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't use that. But I'd reference it as a print item. I could see both arguments for linking to the scanned version. 68.36.163.22 16:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick thing.

I accidentally clicked enter early, but what I meant to say in an edit summary is that for consistency, let's name people in the Short if they're revealed to be playing themselves. Otherwise the entire casts of Shorts will start to be listed, which would be horrible in cases such as The Tangent. -- Viewdrix 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Digital"?

Why are these called "Digital" shorts? In what sense are they digital? Does this mean they were produced using digital video cameras and PC- or Mac-based software? The first time I saw the introduction to one of these, I was expecting computer animation or something.

Could an explanation of this term be added to the article, maybe with the reason "digital" shorts are different from other shorts that SNL has done for years?

No idea. Guesses? The show went digital/HDTV this season, the season where Digital Shorts began. I personally know they are put together using fairly standard personal computer editing software because of The Lonely Island's comments and past, but I doubt that has anything to do with it. -- Viewdrix 00:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The guy who asked the question is right. All of the shooting is done with consumer grade DV cameras and PCs/Macs. I remember the interview after Lazy Sunday where they said the shooting was done in a couple days and edited on a laptop bought on Craigslist. --waffle iron talk 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I added an explaination in the opening paragraph and cited it. --waffle iron talk 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lonely Island responsible?

I don't believe the Lonely Island fellows are responsible for all the digital shorts. I can recall seeing SNL Digital Shorts back in the 90s. A quick Googling shows at least some references to SNL Digital Shorts before they joined the cast: [1]

There have always been filmed segments on the show, like the New York City Confessions this season, or the Steve Martin opening last season. However, it seems those labelled "Digital Shorts" are at least directed by Akiva Shaffer, and many written and produced by The Lonely Island. The only proof against it is one semi-anonymous Internet user who may just be referring to a previous filmed segment as a "Digital Short". -- Viewdrix 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dick in a Box" (or whatever it's actually called)

Now that the NY Times has written a lengthy, in-depth article on the sketch, it's been viewed something like four million times, and almost every well-known blog (including those that could be considered reliable has mentioned/written about it, I think it's time for "Dick in a Box" to get its own article. Anyone agree? -- Kicking222 14:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The NY Times article focuses more on the network releasing an uncensored sketch onto the Internet rather than the Short's popularity itself. I think we should wait at least another week to see where the popularity leads, if it becomes referenced in other media (though it'd be much harder to quote it like Lazy Sunday was), etc. Lazy Sunday's article was made 4 days after originally airing, yes, but it was nothing more than a short, short summary and the lyrics for a while. -- Viewdrix 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bleeped by censors: what it means.

Here's the thing. Yes, producers and the network allowed the song to be bleeped on air to follow standards and practices. The censors, however, are the people actually in the control room pressing the "bleep" button between the time something is live in-studio, and when it's aired seconds later across the country. Now, the important thing about the wording is that to say the producers bleeped the short would mean they prepared the short with bleeps already in before showing it to the audience, when the laugh track on the uncensored video implies that they did not; instead, the video was shown uncensored to the audience, and was bleeped by the censors before airing on television seconds later. -- Viewdrix 03:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I think we should put screenshots of the shorts in the table.- JustPhil 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more table...

I think each short should have their own section. As opposed to the table. It'd be easier to organize and we could go into more detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.53.218 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I fear that by doing that and going into detail over each one, we'd find the article far too long in less than a year. Not near every Digital Short is worth going into detail, especially in terms of individual short popularity. Going into detail about a sketch just because it's a Digital Short seems unnecessary. -- Viewdrix 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taco Town

Personally, Taco Town is one of my favorite SNL Digital Shorts, I Think it should be added on the table.

Except it's not a Digital Short. The table isn't just hughlights, it's every Digital Short made. Just because something is filmed doesn't make it a Digital Short. Read the article. -- Viewdrix 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 14 Digital Short

Someone has made it impossible to write anything for the synopsis. The text is all there, but it is not appearing. Doc Strange 13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD?

Does anybody know of any truth to the rumor of a possible DVD release of all the shorts? We all know how awesome that would be. [The answer is really awesome, obviously.]

[edit] talking dog

I'm pretty sure the dog was voiced by Bill Hader. Unless there is a cast thing listing the writer as him.- JustPhil 02:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube links?

I think the SNL Digital Shorts videos hosted on NBC.com are more proper, rather than linking to videos on YouTube.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.162.197 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree for multiple reasons. YouTube, if posted by NBC themselves and thus completely legal, offer the videos without any advertisements to annoy viewers. As well, NBC's video player has seemingly random location-based restrictions, barring me from some videos even in Canada. As an international website, Wikipedia should not post videos restricted to a single country. There's nothing more "proper" about it at all. -- Viewdrix 04:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Viewdrix, linking to sites with regional restrictions when there is a site that offers the same video internationally is kind of against the worldwide point of view rule here on Wiki. Imagine having notes next to the link saying you have to be in the United States to view all of the videos... --Jack Zhang (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laser Cats

I applaud the anonymous who has taken it upon himself to add to the entries for the three Laser Cats script. Your spelling is atrocious, your grammar is hideous and your indignant tone toward the 'pagorizing' of 'Star Warts' is hilarious. To you I lift a glass and say mazel tov! 24.218.218.197 (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)