Re: [TV orNotTV] Grand Jury Indicts Baldwin on Involuntary Manslaughter

[PGage]

You are right that the jury may not care about what a reasonable actor on a
set is expected to do, which is the kind of jury nullification this
prosecution is no doubt counting on. But the law does. A guilty verdict
would mean the court is imposing a new criminal standard retroactively on
Baldwin, and all other actors. Everyday common sense tells us we ought not
to punch the guy next to us at a bar in the face, but act it’s do that all
the time. I doubt many take the trouble to ask the actor they are about to
punch if they have their permission to punch them (even to pretend to punch
them). That’s because the rules on a film set are different than every day
life, and actors reasonably rely on the producer, director and production
staff.

As I wrote earlier, if the prosecution does have evidence that Baldwin knew
the gun was loaded, or that there were live rounds on set, in his role as
producer, then that will change everything. But without evidence of that
actual knowledge, if Producer Baldwin was somehow negligent, then he would
have civil liability, and perhaps some kind of criminal exposure, but not
the kind of involuntary manslaughter charge actor Baldwin is facing.

Sent from Gmail Mobile


On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 4:28 PM Kevin M.  wrote:

>
>
> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 2:37 PM PGage  wrote:
>
>> I am not sure how they define stupid in Nevada (having spent a lot of
>> time there over the years visiting relatives, I would guess they have a
>> high tolerance for it) but the bar in this case is negligence, or
>> indifference for the safety of others. The fact that the actors union
>> states that actors are not expected to check whether guns they are given to
>> use in scenes are loaded, and that everyone agrees everyone on set was told
>> there were no live rounds at all on set, establishes the standard of
>> negligence, or “stupidity” here.
>>
>
> Baldwin was not merely an actor, but a producer. If they can prove that,
> as producer, Baldwin was aware safety procedures were not being followed
> (and might have been directly responsible for the unsafe conditions), then
> they need only prove that Baldwin, as actor, acted recklessly under those
> circumstances by not inspecting the weapon. Union expectations do not
> supersede common sense firearms handling. The law isn’t going to care about
> an actor’s contractual obligations, nor — I suspect — will a jury. The law
> will care whether a person handling a gun with the intent to fire it
> ignored the safe handling of the weapon before pointing it at others and
> pulling the trigger. Forensics disproved Baldwin’s claim that he did not
> pull the trigger, and I suspect that report factored heavily in the grand
> jury’s indictment; he lied to police about his actions, which makes
> anything else he said suspect in the eyes of the law.
>
>
>> This is the main criticism of the decision to charge; they are using as
>> the standard real life situations - if I am drinking beers with you in my
>> basement, aim a gun at you and pull the trigger (or even cock the hammer),
>> and it goes off and kills you, I am negligent or “stupid”, as I acted in
>> reckless disregard for your safety. But an actor on a movie set is in a
>> very different situation, with different expectations. Not clear how they
>> can argue that Baldwin, as an actor, should have know there was a live
>> round in the gun, or should have checked the gun before using it, when no
>> other actor on that set would have been expected to do that, and the vast
>> majority of actors on all other Union sets would not be expected to do that.
>>
>> As several have pointed out, Baldwin the producer may well be liable for
>> not hiring competent people and not enforcing adequate safety standards.
>>
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 2:03 PM Steve Timko  wrote:
>>
>>> In Nevada, felony stupid can bring a second degree murder conviction.
>>> Sounds like that is what the New Mexico prosecutors want to prove
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 12:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>>>
 Helpful summary in the NYT of the legal issues and challenges facing NM
 prosecutors in the Baldwin case. Again, unless they have some surprise
 evidence that Baldwin either planted the live rounds himself, or knew there
 were live rounds and used the prop gun anyway, this seems like an instance
 of overcharging.


 =


 “If the case reaches trial, the challenge prosecutors face will be
 convincing a jury that Baldwin was guilty of either the negligent use of a
 firearm or of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety
 of others” — even though investigators found he was told on the day of the
 shooting that the gun he was rehearsing with contained no live rounds, and
 even though the film set was not supposed to have any live ammunition at
 all…


 The outcome of the case at trial — the State of New Mexico vs.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Grand Jury Indicts Baldwin on Involuntary Manslaughter

[Kevin M.]

Kevin M. (RPCV)


On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 2:37 PM PGage  wrote:

> I am not sure how they define stupid in Nevada (having spent a lot of time
> there over the years visiting relatives, I would guess they have a high
> tolerance for it) but the bar in this case is negligence, or indifference
> for the safety of others. The fact that the actors union states that actors
> are not expected to check whether guns they are given to use in scenes are
> loaded, and that everyone agrees everyone on set was told there were no
> live rounds at all on set, establishes the standard of negligence, or
> “stupidity” here.
>

Baldwin was not merely an actor, but a producer. If they can prove that, as
producer, Baldwin was aware safety procedures were not being followed (and
might have been directly responsible for the unsafe conditions), then they
need only prove that Baldwin, as actor, acted recklessly under those
circumstances by not inspecting the weapon. Union expectations do not
supersede common sense firearms handling. The law isn’t going to care about
an actor’s contractual obligations, nor — I suspect — will a jury. The law
will care whether a person handling a gun with the intent to fire it
ignored the safe handling of the weapon before pointing it at others and
pulling the trigger. Forensics disproved Baldwin’s claim that he did not
pull the trigger, and I suspect that report factored heavily in the grand
jury’s indictment; he lied to police about his actions, which makes
anything else he said suspect in the eyes of the law.


> This is the main criticism of the decision to charge; they are using as
> the standard real life situations - if I am drinking beers with you in my
> basement, aim a gun at you and pull the trigger (or even cock the hammer),
> and it goes off and kills you, I am negligent or “stupid”, as I acted in
> reckless disregard for your safety. But an actor on a movie set is in a
> very different situation, with different expectations. Not clear how they
> can argue that Baldwin, as an actor, should have know there was a live
> round in the gun, or should have checked the gun before using it, when no
> other actor on that set would have been expected to do that, and the vast
> majority of actors on all other Union sets would not be expected to do that.
>
> As several have pointed out, Baldwin the producer may well be liable for
> not hiring competent people and not enforcing adequate safety standards.
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 2:03 PM Steve Timko  wrote:
>
>> In Nevada, felony stupid can bring a second degree murder conviction.
>> Sounds like that is what the New Mexico prosecutors want to prove
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 12:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>>
>>> Helpful summary in the NYT of the legal issues and challenges facing NM
>>> prosecutors in the Baldwin case. Again, unless they have some surprise
>>> evidence that Baldwin either planted the live rounds himself, or knew there
>>> were live rounds and used the prop gun anyway, this seems like an instance
>>> of overcharging.
>>>
>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>>
>>> “If the case reaches trial, the challenge prosecutors face will be
>>> convincing a jury that Baldwin was guilty of either the negligent use of a
>>> firearm or of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety
>>> of others” — even though investigators found he was told on the day of the
>>> shooting that the gun he was rehearsing with contained no live rounds, and
>>> even though the film set was not supposed to have any live ammunition at
>>> all…
>>>
>>>
>>> The outcome of the case at trial — the State of New Mexico vs. Alexander
>>> (Alec) Rae Baldwin — would hinge on how jurors view two key questions:
>>> Should Baldwin have known of the danger involved in his actions that day?
>>> And, using a term of art in criminal law, did he act with a “willful
>>> disregard for the safety of others”?
>>>
>>>
>>> “I think it’s an uphill battle,” said Steve Aarons, a veteran defense
>>> lawyer in New Mexico. “There is no reason for live rounds to be there. It’s
>>> a little different than other situations where you have a firearm and you
>>> assume any bullet that is there would be a live round.”…
>>>
>>>
>>> But the prosecutors will probably take the straightforward position that
>>> anyone who agrees to handle a gun is responsible for what happens next,
>>> said Joshua Kastenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of New
>>> Mexico and a former prosecutor…
>>>
>>>
>>> The new case, said Marc A. Grano, a lawyer and former prosecutor in New
>>> Mexico, will most likely become a back-and-forth over what is “standard
>>> practice” in the film and TV industry, a battle that may include
>>> conflicting opinions and examples.
>>>
>>>
>>> After the original criminal case was brought against Baldwin last year,
>>> the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio
>>> Artists, the union representing film and TV actors, opposed the
>>> 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Grand Jury Indicts Baldwin on Involuntary Manslaughter

[PGage]

I am not sure how they define stupid in Nevada (having spent a lot of time
there over the years visiting relatives, I would guess they have a high
tolerance for it) but the bar in this case is negligence, or indifference
for the safety of others. The fact that the actors union states that actors
are not expected to check whether guns they are given to use in scenes are
loaded, and that everyone agrees everyone on set was told there were no
live rounds at all on set, establishes the standard of negligence, or
“stupidity” here.

This is the main criticism of the decision to charge; they are using as the
standard real life situations - if I am drinking beers with you in my
basement, aim a gun at you and pull the trigger (or even cock the hammer),
and it goes off and kills you, I am negligent or “stupid”, as I acted in
reckless disregard for your safety. But an actor on a movie set is in a
very different situation, with different expectations. Not clear how they
can argue that Baldwin, as an actor, should have know there was a live
round in the gun, or should have checked the gun before using it, when no
other actor on that set would have been expected to do that, and the vast
majority of actors on all other Union sets would not be expected to do that.

As several have pointed out, Baldwin the producer may well be liable for
not hiring competent people and not enforcing adequate safety standards.

Sent from Gmail Mobile


On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 2:03 PM Steve Timko  wrote:

> In Nevada, felony stupid can bring a second degree murder conviction.
> Sounds like that is what the New Mexico prosecutors want to prove
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 12:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>
>> Helpful summary in the NYT of the legal issues and challenges facing NM
>> prosecutors in the Baldwin case. Again, unless they have some surprise
>> evidence that Baldwin either planted the live rounds himself, or knew there
>> were live rounds and used the prop gun anyway, this seems like an instance
>> of overcharging.
>>
>>
>> =
>>
>>
>> “If the case reaches trial, the challenge prosecutors face will be
>> convincing a jury that Baldwin was guilty of either the negligent use of a
>> firearm or of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety
>> of others” — even though investigators found he was told on the day of the
>> shooting that the gun he was rehearsing with contained no live rounds, and
>> even though the film set was not supposed to have any live ammunition at
>> all…
>>
>>
>> The outcome of the case at trial — the State of New Mexico vs. Alexander
>> (Alec) Rae Baldwin — would hinge on how jurors view two key questions:
>> Should Baldwin have known of the danger involved in his actions that day?
>> And, using a term of art in criminal law, did he act with a “willful
>> disregard for the safety of others”?
>>
>>
>> “I think it’s an uphill battle,” said Steve Aarons, a veteran defense
>> lawyer in New Mexico. “There is no reason for live rounds to be there. It’s
>> a little different than other situations where you have a firearm and you
>> assume any bullet that is there would be a live round.”…
>>
>>
>> But the prosecutors will probably take the straightforward position that
>> anyone who agrees to handle a gun is responsible for what happens next,
>> said Joshua Kastenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of New
>> Mexico and a former prosecutor…
>>
>>
>> The new case, said Marc A. Grano, a lawyer and former prosecutor in New
>> Mexico, will most likely become a back-and-forth over what is “standard
>> practice” in the film and TV industry, a battle that may include
>> conflicting opinions and examples.
>>
>>
>> After the original criminal case was brought against Baldwin last year,
>> the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio
>> Artists, the union representing film and TV actors, opposed the
>> prosecutors’ contention that actors were responsible for ensuring that the
>> guns they were handed on set were safe to handle, saying, “an actor’s job
>> is not to be a firearms or weapons expert.”
>>
>>
>> https://news.yahoo.com/legal-center-alec-baldwin-criminal-153342056.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 5:14 PM PGage  wrote:
>>
>>> As I have said all along, it does not seem they have evidence he acted
>>> criminally in handling the gun. As you say, he may well have substantial
>>> civil responsibility as a producer.
>>>
>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 3:35 PM Kevin M. 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I’m sure his lawyers will somehow weasel him out of this one, but he
 should be held to account for his culpability as producer.

 Kevin M. (RPCV)


 On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:41 PM PGage  wrote:

>
> “SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A grand jury indicted Alec Baldwin on Friday on
> an involuntary manslaughter charge in a 2021 fatal shooting during a
> rehearsal on a movie set in New Mexico, reviving 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Grand Jury Indicts Baldwin on Involuntary Manslaughter

[Steve Timko]

In Nevada, felony stupid can bring a second degree murder conviction.
Sounds like that is what the New Mexico prosecutors want to prove

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 12:25 PM PGage  wrote:

> Helpful summary in the NYT of the legal issues and challenges facing NM
> prosecutors in the Baldwin case. Again, unless they have some surprise
> evidence that Baldwin either planted the live rounds himself, or knew there
> were live rounds and used the prop gun anyway, this seems like an instance
> of overcharging.
>
>
> =
>
>
> “If the case reaches trial, the challenge prosecutors face will be
> convincing a jury that Baldwin was guilty of either the negligent use of a
> firearm or of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety
> of others” — even though investigators found he was told on the day of the
> shooting that the gun he was rehearsing with contained no live rounds, and
> even though the film set was not supposed to have any live ammunition at
> all…
>
>
> The outcome of the case at trial — the State of New Mexico vs. Alexander
> (Alec) Rae Baldwin — would hinge on how jurors view two key questions:
> Should Baldwin have known of the danger involved in his actions that day?
> And, using a term of art in criminal law, did he act with a “willful
> disregard for the safety of others”?
>
>
> “I think it’s an uphill battle,” said Steve Aarons, a veteran defense
> lawyer in New Mexico. “There is no reason for live rounds to be there. It’s
> a little different than other situations where you have a firearm and you
> assume any bullet that is there would be a live round.”…
>
>
> But the prosecutors will probably take the straightforward position that
> anyone who agrees to handle a gun is responsible for what happens next,
> said Joshua Kastenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of New
> Mexico and a former prosecutor…
>
>
> The new case, said Marc A. Grano, a lawyer and former prosecutor in New
> Mexico, will most likely become a back-and-forth over what is “standard
> practice” in the film and TV industry, a battle that may include
> conflicting opinions and examples.
>
>
> After the original criminal case was brought against Baldwin last year,
> the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio
> Artists, the union representing film and TV actors, opposed the
> prosecutors’ contention that actors were responsible for ensuring that the
> guns they were handed on set were safe to handle, saying, “an actor’s job
> is not to be a firearms or weapons expert.”
>
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/legal-center-alec-baldwin-criminal-153342056.html
>
>
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 5:14 PM PGage  wrote:
>
>> As I have said all along, it does not seem they have evidence he acted
>> criminally in handling the gun. As you say, he may well have substantial
>> civil responsibility as a producer.
>>
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 3:35 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>>
>>> I’m sure his lawyers will somehow weasel him out of this one, but he
>>> should be held to account for his culpability as producer.
>>>
>>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:41 PM PGage  wrote:
>>>

 “SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A grand jury indicted Alec Baldwin on Friday on
 an involuntary manslaughter charge in a 2021 fatal shooting during a
 rehearsal on a movie set in New Mexico, reviving a dormant case against the
 actor.

 Special prosecutors brought the case before a grand jury in Santa Fe
 this week, months after receiving a new analysis of the gun that was used.
 They declined to answer questions after spending about a day and a half
 presenting their case to the grand jury.

 Defense attorneys for Baldwin indicated they’ll fight the charges.

 “We look forward to our day in court,” said Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro,
 defense attorneys for Baldwin, in an email.

 While the proceeding is shrouded in secrecy, two of the witnesses seen
 at the courthouse included crew members — one who was present when the
 fatal shot was fired and another who had walked off the set the day before
 due to safety concerns….”


 https://apnews.com/article/59e437602146168ced27fd8e03acb636

 Sent from Gmail Mobile

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLhYQe15A9na5XBZPHXaWVA5MiUgqD15MLaan8c29vvwA%40mail.gmail.com
 
 .

>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Grand Jury Indicts Baldwin on Involuntary Manslaughter

[PGage]

Helpful summary in the NYT of the legal issues and challenges facing NM
prosecutors in the Baldwin case. Again, unless they have some surprise
evidence that Baldwin either planted the live rounds himself, or knew there
were live rounds and used the prop gun anyway, this seems like an instance
of overcharging.


=


“If the case reaches trial, the challenge prosecutors face will be
convincing a jury that Baldwin was guilty of either the negligent use of a
firearm or of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety
of others” — even though investigators found he was told on the day of the
shooting that the gun he was rehearsing with contained no live rounds, and
even though the film set was not supposed to have any live ammunition at
all…


The outcome of the case at trial — the State of New Mexico vs. Alexander
(Alec) Rae Baldwin — would hinge on how jurors view two key questions:
Should Baldwin have known of the danger involved in his actions that day?
And, using a term of art in criminal law, did he act with a “willful
disregard for the safety of others”?


“I think it’s an uphill battle,” said Steve Aarons, a veteran defense
lawyer in New Mexico. “There is no reason for live rounds to be there. It’s
a little different than other situations where you have a firearm and you
assume any bullet that is there would be a live round.”…


But the prosecutors will probably take the straightforward position that
anyone who agrees to handle a gun is responsible for what happens next,
said Joshua Kastenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of New
Mexico and a former prosecutor…


The new case, said Marc A. Grano, a lawyer and former prosecutor in New
Mexico, will most likely become a back-and-forth over what is “standard
practice” in the film and TV industry, a battle that may include
conflicting opinions and examples.


After the original criminal case was brought against Baldwin last year, the
Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists,
the union representing film and TV actors, opposed the prosecutors’
contention that actors were responsible for ensuring that the guns they
were handed on set were safe to handle, saying, “an actor’s job is not to
be a firearms or weapons expert.”


https://news.yahoo.com/legal-center-alec-baldwin-criminal-153342056.html



Sent from Gmail Mobile


On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 5:14 PM PGage  wrote:

> As I have said all along, it does not seem they have evidence he acted
> criminally in handling the gun. As you say, he may well have substantial
> civil responsibility as a producer.
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 3:35 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>> I’m sure his lawyers will somehow weasel him out of this one, but he
>> should be held to account for his culpability as producer.
>>
>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:41 PM PGage  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> “SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A grand jury indicted Alec Baldwin on Friday on
>>> an involuntary manslaughter charge in a 2021 fatal shooting during a
>>> rehearsal on a movie set in New Mexico, reviving a dormant case against the
>>> actor.
>>>
>>> Special prosecutors brought the case before a grand jury in Santa Fe
>>> this week, months after receiving a new analysis of the gun that was used.
>>> They declined to answer questions after spending about a day and a half
>>> presenting their case to the grand jury.
>>>
>>> Defense attorneys for Baldwin indicated they’ll fight the charges.
>>>
>>> “We look forward to our day in court,” said Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro,
>>> defense attorneys for Baldwin, in an email.
>>>
>>> While the proceeding is shrouded in secrecy, two of the witnesses seen
>>> at the courthouse included crew members — one who was present when the
>>> fatal shot was fired and another who had walked off the set the day before
>>> due to safety concerns….”
>>>
>>>
>>> https://apnews.com/article/59e437602146168ced27fd8e03acb636
>>>
>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLhYQe15A9na5XBZPHXaWVA5MiUgqD15MLaan8c29vvwA%40mail.gmail.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4D6Q%3DohnFOcM68nxAGvek3KNNa8ho9uBVGad8z%3Dt3PcHw%40mail.gmail.com
>> 

Re: [TV orNotTV] 'SNL' Origin Story Movie May Be Coming

[Dave Sikula]

I have to wonder if the thing that keeps him going is his absolute lock on NBC 
late night. I’d guess that the network would look for a way to get ownership of 
all of those hours back, the way CBS took the 12:30 slot away from WWP (even if 
Colbert seems to co-own that now).

—Dave Sikula

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 21, 2024, at 11:01 AM, Tom Wolper  wrote:
> 
> 
> The biggest question will be if NBC keeps Broadway Video as the production 
> company for SNL after Lorne is gone. If they don’t the network can empty out 
> all of the staff offices and let a new EP start from scratch. They can also 
> slash the budget, cut back on the number of cast members, and the writing 
> staff.
> 
> If the show stays with Broadway Video, I’d assume one of Lorne’s assistant 
> EPs would move up to the EP job. Depending on the contract they have, NBC 
> will probably use the opportunity to cut the budget.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/0AA0-1D2A-4D38-BEE6-16E17AA6D705%40gmail.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] 'SNL' Origin Story Movie May Be Coming

[Tom Wolper]

The biggest question will be if NBC keeps Broadway Video as the production
company for SNL after Lorne is gone. If they don’t the network can empty
out all of the staff offices and let a new EP start from scratch. They can
also slash the budget, cut back on the number of cast members, and the
writing staff.

If the show stays with Broadway Video, I’d assume one of Lorne’s assistant
EPs would move up to the EP job. Depending on the contract they have, NBC
will probably use the opportunity to cut the budget.

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 10:41 PM Kevin M.  wrote:

>
>
> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 6:27 PM Melissa P 
> wrote:
>
>> SNL's problem has always been good writing (even in the early days), LOTS
>> of consistently good writing.
>>
>> Also, experience outweighs youth in my opinion.
>>
>> I'm reminded of a taping of* Everyone Loves Raymond* I attended.  I got
>> to tell Phil Rosenthal that one particular episode was one the finest
>> sitcom episodes I had ever seen.  He identified the writer of that episode
>> who was congregating with the show's other writers.  He was probably twice
>> the age of anyone else on the writing team.   In this society, we seem to
>> dismiss too quickly the value of experience.
>>
>
> I am a fan of Scrubs creator Bill Lawrence, but he will be the first to
> admit that he’s not responsible for Ted Lasso or the other recent shows
> where he’s credited as producer. As was done for him on Spin City, he now
> serves as the elder statesman, shepherding new and younger writers and
> producers. He sees it as his responsibility to foster the creativity of
> future generations. Lorne Michaels would never consider anything like that.
> He sees young talent as something to be milked for his own benefit.
>
>
>> I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but I think I posted here an SNL sketch
>> that actually made me laugh, the first time in years.  The setting was a
>> Waffle House.  When I was in Memphis last month, the local lead news story
>> was shootings at two Waffle Houses.  I had been to both of them.
>>
>> Gosh, Kevin, there's so much we're not teaching kids these days, starting
>> with being able to separate fact from fiction, civics, and instilling in
>> them the value of expertise.  (The Supreme Court is about to do away with
>> the latter.)
>>
>
> Not for nothing, but the students I teach get lessons in all of the above,
> and I also make sure they know and appreciate Johnny Carson, Mr Rogers,
> Humphrey Bogart, and Snoopy, to name a few.
>
>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 4:05 PM Kevin M. 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I concur with your resentment, but I also understand the thought behind
>>> the ageism. SNL has to cultivate a younger and more diverse audience if it
>>> is going to survive while still not totally alienating its older viewers. I
>>> think Michaels struggles with this, and I think Fey would struggle with it,
>>> too, but less because of her age and more because of her inability to
>>> pander without it seeming obvious (looking at you, Mean Girls reboot). A
>>> younger showrunner more connected to modern popular culture might have a
>>> better chance at reaching 14-year-olds, but teens and young adults are
>>> unpredictable in their tastes and sensibilities (which is to say most have
>>> neither taste nor sense). They might gravitate towards media produced by a
>>> 50-something just because society doesn’t expect them to.
>>>
>>> Many of the middle school students I encounter consider themselves
>>> Swifties but in the same breath say they hate country music. They believe
>>> you cannot be successful on the basketball court without Nikes, but their
>>> Nikes are the ones from Shoe City that on closer inspection aren’t really
>>> Nikes. You can show them how your $20 water cup keeps drinks colder longer
>>> than their $50 Stanley cup, but they will still maintain their cup is
>>> superior. But any adult who tries to relate to them or speak to them using
>>> their common slang (such as “sus” or “bussin’”) will be regarded as one
>>> step below a pedophile. By and large, kids today (oh, how I hate that
>>> expression) can spot someone talking down to them and immediately reject
>>> them… it might be their only redeeming virtue. As long as SNL persists in
>>> pandering, they will fail to capture the attention of kids today. Michaels
>>> and Fey both only know how to do comedy that panders, which is not to say
>>> there isn’t genuine laughter to be found in that mine, but it won’t hook
>>> young audiences.
>>>
>>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 12:08 PM Melissa P 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'll just add that I resent someone saying that at 53, Fey is too old
 for the job.


 On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 2:58 PM Tom Wolper  wrote:

> Lorne’s superpower was that nobody at NBC would mess with him. Once
> he’s out of the picture the new showrunner will have to answer to all of
> the network’s executives. It’s a wonder the show lasted 

[TV orNotTV] Quick companion switch for Gatwa's Doctor

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

Ex-Corrie co-star Millie Gibson will finish out Season 14 of "Who 2.0," 
which will include yet another return for Bonnie Langford (C. Baker/S. 
McCoy companion, and "The Giggle"), and give way to Varada Sethu (*Jurassic 
World Dominion*)...
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/doctor-who-millie-gibson-varada-sethu-1235880343/
 (link)
B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/d4920434-5cfc-4ffe-8e7d-6c733ccb2ecfn%40googlegroups.com.