So, you probably know he's mouthing a sketch that is already a character on SNL, so getting him on SNL to...replace a character?...doesn't make much sense.
9 is right though, hahaha busted.
But -barf - I can just HEAR a huge lisssssp in my head based on the way he's merely moving his mouth. barf.
His talent seems to be that he's pretty - especially when naked - and if he practices really hard he can imitate someone else....someone else's skit that was funny once or twice but is now overdone...
He's probably a very nice man. But just because someone wins American Idol it doesn't mean they have talent.
Many people can sing - or act funny - or be cute - but until that person creates their own "thing" to act, sing or make people laugh, they really aren't talented....they're just nice to look at.
Good for him for being pretty and knowing how to get attention...(can we set the bar a little higher please?)
He's hot as hell and knows it (why else lip-sync to Kristen Wiig without a shirt on?), but I didn't find him all that funny. Not bad, I guess, but I wouldn't start booking him comedy gigs.
However, if "SNL" wants to hire him just to stand shirtless in the background of every sketch, that alone would improve the show tenfold.
Huh, the cat-baby is really the only funny part of the skit, though I think it would be funnier if Penelope were a man (I find the character much more aggravating than funny, like the Stuart skits on MADtv). Still, given that THAT skit is what he chooses, I'm gonna vote "no" for adding a cast member whose humor runs toward a vein I dislike.
@20: Now THAT'S an awesome idea; random, gratuitous targeted-at-gay-men-and-straight-women fanservice. They'd have to make sure NOBODY acknowledged his presence in any way for it to work, and anyone giving interviews would have to act completely confused about the questions concerning the naked man in the background. Then if they DID add him to the cast, he could simply be naked as a matter-of-course, in every single sketch, with no one reacting as though it were at all odd.
Plus, it would drive the Christian Right absolutely nuts, which can only be a good thing, particularly if they hand the keys over, as it were, to the party that gave us two clusterfucks of ongoing wars and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression (not to mention all of that other anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-Hispanic, pro-corporate-personhood stuff) this election.
Why has the choice come down to ineffective, evil, or batshit crazy? I grew up during Bush I and Clinton (I can't remember the end part of Regan for which I was alive); was it like this before?
Judith, I think he'll look great OUT of his Fruit of the Loom too! Loved the playing with his ears, but I'd really like to see him play with something. Else.
Did someone say "legally binding SLOG poll"?
9 is right though, hahaha busted.
But -barf - I can just HEAR a huge lisssssp in my head based on the way he's merely moving his mouth. barf.
He's probably a very nice man. But just because someone wins American Idol it doesn't mean they have talent.
Many people can sing - or act funny - or be cute - but until that person creates their own "thing" to act, sing or make people laugh, they really aren't talented....they're just nice to look at.
Good for him for being pretty and knowing how to get attention...(can we set the bar a little higher please?)
Still. Don't. Get. It.
I also don't understand the popularity of Showtunes at Sidetrack but maybe that's the problem.
F*able? Yes. But I'll probably need something to keep him from talking. Maybe he can lipsync in real life too.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/11931/saturday…
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz
However, if "SNL" wants to hire him just to stand shirtless in the background of every sketch, that alone would improve the show tenfold.
@20: Now THAT'S an awesome idea; random, gratuitous targeted-at-gay-men-and-straight-women fanservice. They'd have to make sure NOBODY acknowledged his presence in any way for it to work, and anyone giving interviews would have to act completely confused about the questions concerning the naked man in the background. Then if they DID add him to the cast, he could simply be naked as a matter-of-course, in every single sketch, with no one reacting as though it were at all odd.
Plus, it would drive the Christian Right absolutely nuts, which can only be a good thing, particularly if they hand the keys over, as it were, to the party that gave us two clusterfucks of ongoing wars and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression (not to mention all of that other anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-Hispanic, pro-corporate-personhood stuff) this election.
Why has the choice come down to ineffective, evil, or batshit crazy? I grew up during Bush I and Clinton (I can't remember the end part of Regan for which I was alive); was it like this before?