John Mulaney jokes that only 2 SNL hosts have ‘committed murder' – here's who he was likely referring to
John Mulaney stunned the audience during his Saturday Night Live opening monologue when he said that two out of the 894 people who have hosted the sketch show in the past five decades have committed murder.
The comedian performed at an anniversary event for the US sketch show, which has spent the weekend celebrating its 50th birthday with a series of ceremonies featuring many famous faces.
During an opening monologue with Steve Martin, Mulaney said there have been 894 hosts across the show's five-decade history, but 'it amazes me that only two of them have committed murder'. Each week, the show sees a well-known star take over hosting duties, which involves delivering an opening monologue and appearing in multiple sketches.
Mulaney did not elaborate on the two hosts he was referring to, but it is believed he was referring to OJ Simpson and Robert Blake, who hosted in 1978 and 1982, respectively.
NFL star Simpson was the subject of one of the most high-profile murder trials in American history, over the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, in 1994. He was charged with both murders in 1994 but acquitted the following year. He was later found liable in the wrongful death of Goldman and battery of both Brown and Goldman in a civil lawsuit, and was ordered to pay $33.5m in damages. Simpson died in 2024 aged 76.
Actor Robert Blake, best known for starring in the 1967 film In Cold Blood, was charged but acquitted in the shooting of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley. Though he was found not guilty at trial, he was found liable of wrongful death in a civil lawsuit and he was ordered to pay $30m in damages. Blake died in 2023 aged 89.
Elsewhere at the 50th anniversary celebrations for the sketch show, Ryan Reynolds shocked fans with a joke about the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni drama.
Reynolds and Lively's appearance at the special was their first public showing amid the ongoing It Ends With Us scandal, which has seen both Lively and the film's director and co-star Baldoni file respective lawsuits against each other.
In December, Lively sued Baldoni for sexual harassment and causing her 'severe emotional distress'. Meanwhile, Baldoni, who was subsequently dropped by his agency after the allegations emerged, denied all claims and sued Lively and Reynolds for $400m (£321m) for attempting to 'destroy' his reputation and career.
SNL encouraged Reynolds, who previously hinted at a difficult time in his first social media post since Lively's lawsuit, to reference the scandal in a small moment involving Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.
When the stars spotted Lively and Reynolds in the crowd, they said: 'Ryan! How's it going?' to which Reynolds, who stood up, replied: 'Great! Why, what have you heard?'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
13 minutes ago
- NBC News
Judge tells Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni to work out dispute over dismissal of emotional distress claims
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's legal squabble over her claims of emotional distress hit a roadblock Tuesday when a federal judge refused to let Lively dismiss them on her preferred terms, instead telling both sides to reach an agreement. The recent dispute between the 'It Ends With Us' co-stars, who have been entangled in a high-profile legal battle for months, arose after Baldoni's lawyers requested Lively's medical and mental health records to defend against her claims that he intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress while they were on the set of the film. Lively's initial complaint in December accused Baldoni of sexual harassment, as well as retaliation, after she raised issues about his on-set behavior — allegations Baldoni's lawyers have denied. Since then, the two stars have been embroiled in a tense legal standoff, with each accusing the other of having orchestrated a smear campaign. Rather than provide medical and mental health records requested by Baldoni's team, Lively offered to drop her emotional distress claims, according to court documents filed Monday. In response, Baldoni's lawyers Monday disputed her request to dismiss the claims 'without prejudice,' meaning she would be able to refile them later. In a court filing, Baldoni's team argued that Lively should permanently dismiss her claims if she will not provide the medical records it requested. In its own court filing hours later, Lively's team called Baldoni's motion a 'false and plainly improper public relations stunt' and asked the court to deny and strike the motion entirely. On Tuesday morning, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman of the Southern District of New York denied Lively's request but wrote that she can file a formal motion asking for dismissal without prejudice. Otherwise, Liman wrote, Lively's and Baldoni's teams must agree among themselves whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice. He also denied Baldoni's motion to force Lively to provide her medical records, saying the request is rendered moot now that Lively is withdrawing her emotional distress claims. Liman's ruling pressures Lively to dismiss her claims either way, as he wrote that 'if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.' In a statement, Lively's lawyers Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb wrote that Lively offered to dismiss those claims 'because they are no longer necessary, and she will continue to pursue emotional distress damages through other claims in her lawsuit, including sexual harassment and retaliation.' 'In addition, the Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive damages under California law,' Lively's lawyers wrote. (Wayfarer Studios, the production company behind 'It Ends With Us,' which Baldoni co-founded, is a defendant along with Baldoni.) 'This is exactly where both parties were before the Baldoni-Wayfarer Parties rushed to file this utterly pointless motion to compel, all searching for yet another press moment,' Lively's lawyers wrote. Lawyers for Baldoni did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. Baldoni's filing Monday argued that Lively was trying to avoid providing her medical records while preserving her claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 'Ms. Lively cannot have it both ways. If Ms. Lively wants to withdraw her frivolous IED [intentional infliction of emotional distress] Claims, the Wayfarer Parties are entitled to a dismissal with prejudice to ensure they will not be re-filed,' Baldoni's lawyers said in the filing. 'If Ms. Lively is unwilling to stipulate to the dismissal of her IED Claims with prejudice, then the Wayfarer Parties will continue to defend against them, and she must produce her medical information and documents as set forth herein.' Baldoni's lawyers were specifically seeking the names and addresses of her health care providers, their treatment notes and signed privacy forms authorizing the release of her records. They wrote in their filing Monday that because she claimed emotional injuries, Lively has placed her mental condition 'at issue' and thus 'waived any doctor-patient privilege.' Lively's lawyers countered Baldoni's motion in their response Monday, arguing that Lively voluntarily agreed to withdraw her emotional distress claims 'in good faith' to streamline the case. They added that Baldoni's team had conceded that that means their request for medical records would become moot. Lively's filing also claimed that Baldoni's lawyers did not raise any objections to her proposed revisions to the joint stipulation for dismissal during a conference call Monday. It alleged that Baldoni's team instead rushed to file a 'clearly pre-written Motion the minute that the teleconference concluded.' 'Almost immediately thereafter, tabloid media began reporting 'exclusively' on Ms. Lively's 'shock' move, claiming that she has 'sensationally' dropped her IIED claim, quoting extensively from the Motion,' Lively's filing said. Aside from asking the court to deny and strike the motion, Lively's lawyers had asked Liman on Monday to consider sanctions for the opposition's 'continued abuse of this Court's docket.' 'The Motion was filed for a single audience: the media,' Lively's filing said. 'There is nothing for this Court to compel.'
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tom Brady reveals why he will never criticize Patrick Mahomes amid $375m Fox Sports deal
Tom Brady has opened up on why he will never be too critical of fellow quarterbacks such as Patrick Mahomes. Brady is the most successful quarterback of all time, having won seven Super Bowls during a Hall of Fame career with the New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He recently finished his first season as an NFL analyst after signing a 10-year, $375million deal with Fox Sports. Brady came in for criticism after moving into the broadcast booth and it was recently put to the 47-year-old that he was 'very supportive' of Mahomes from behind the mic. Mahomes is considered the biggest threat to Brady's Super Bowl record, having led the Kansas City Chiefs to five of the past six Super Bowls. Brady helped the Bucs beat the Chiefs in Super Bowl LV but he told Complex Sports: 'How can I throw shade at someone who is as amazing as he is?' View this post on Instagram A post shared by Complex Sports (@complexsports) The NFL legend insisted he wants to be 'honest' and 'up front' with viewers but Brady also admitted that he is reluctant to be harsh on his fellow quarterbacks. 'I know what he's been through and I think the one position I'm in now as a broadcaster is I do feel responsibility a) to tell the fans what I see and be honest and up front about everything. 'But also realize that what these guys are doing on the field is extremely difficult. It's a high level of skill. You're looking at any of the 32 teams who have a starting quarterback out there. 'That guy's one of the best in the world at what he does. So do they make the right plays all the time? Certainly not. By the way, neither did I. 'And I think you have to have this context and perspective and you realize that it's not about this harsh critique and that's not really what it's all about anyway. 'To me, it's more about: let's point out the greatness of these individual players. Have fun, enjoy it, entertain a little bit and really try to to educate people a little bit.'
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Lorenzo Musetti avoids disqualification after kicking a ball at a line judge
In the second set of his quarter-final against American Frances Tiafoe, Musetti booted the ball in frustration and it hit the woman, standing about three metres away, in the chest. Tiafoe looked stunned at the other end of the court and gestured towards the umpire, who eventually gave Musetti a code violation. Lorenzo Musetti received a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct after this incident 😳 #RolandGarros — TNT Sports (@tntsports) June 3, 2025 There were echoes of Novak Djokovic being defaulted at the 2020 US Open after accidentally hitting a female line judge with a ball. Tiafoe, the 15th seed, said: 'I mean, obviously he did that and nothing happened. I think that's comical, but it is what it is. 'Nothing happened, so there's nothing really to talk about. Obviously it's not consistent, so it is what it is.' Former player-turned broadcaster Rennae Stubbs wrote on X: 'Wow Musetti is very lucky to be still on court right now. You cannot kick a ball and it hit the lines person and not be defaulted.' Musetti, who reached the semi-finals at Wimbledon last year, won the match 6-2 4-6 7-5 6-2 to progress to the last four at Roland Garros for the first time. He said: 'Yeah, I was a little bit, honestly, scared, because I really didn't want to harm nobody, of course. Wow Musetti is VERY LUCKY to be still on court right now. You cannot kick a ball and it hit the lines person and not be defaulted. — Rennae Stubbs ♈️ (@rennaestubbs) June 3, 2025 'So I immediately went to the line umpire, and I of course said 'sorry', I apologise to everyone. 'It was right to have a warning, but I think the umpire saw that there was no intention about that, and that's why probably just, you know, let me continue my game.' The French Open is the only one of the four grand slams to still use line judges rather than electronic line calling. Former British number one Tim Henman was defaulted in a Wimbledon doubles match in 1995 when a ball he hit across the net after a point had finished struck a ball kid. Henman, part of TNT Sports and Eurosport's coverage of Roland Garros, said: 'By the letter of the law, if you hit or kick a ball away in frustration and it hits a ball boy, line judge, or umpire, that can be a disqualification. 'When you look at that, the umpire could have interpreted that as a disqualification. However, if Musetti was disqualified for that, Musetti would feel very unlucky and aggrieved. Friday awaits. Be there.#RolandGarros — Roland-Garros (@rolandgarros) June 3, 2025 'When you're kicking a ball away, you've either got to be a better footballer and kick it in the right direction, or you are risking something like that.' Musetti will meet defending champion Carlos Alcaraz, who steamrollered American 12th seed Tommy Paul 6-0 6-1 6-4 in another one-sided night match. 'I'm sorry you wanted to watch more tennis. I had to do my work,' Alcaraz told the Court Philippe-Chatrier crowd afterwards.
