Latest news with #GeorgeCarlin
Forbes
03-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Will Avatars Turn Employees Into Surrogates In An AI Workforce?
Will Avatars Turn Employees Into Surrogates In An AI Workforce? I've been playing around with a few online platforms that let you create an avatar of yourself that looks and sounds a lot like you. The one I tried most recently, created a version of me where the mouth movements didn't quite match how I normally speak. It was basically my face, but the way the mouth moved gave it away. The voice was close, but not exact. Still, it reminded me of the Bruce Willis movie Surrogates. That film showed a world where people stayed home while sending robotic versions of themselves out to live their lives. We already have filters on Zoom that make us look less tired or smooth out a few wrinkles. But creating a video presence that speaks for us without us actually being there feels like a bigger shift. It raises some real questions, especially now that companies are experimenting with AI workforce tools that blur the line between showing up digitally and showing up in person. How AI Workforce Technology Is Changing The Way Employees Show Up Several platforms are pushing the limits of what is possible with AI avatars. With just a few clicks, someone can create a professional video of themselves delivering a message, hosting a training session, or participating in a meeting without ever being live. The message they deliver comes from a script that is just copied and pasted into the software, and then the avatar reads it. It's not unlike a video I saw of a complete standup routine that imitated George Carlin's voice and his style. His estate sued for that creation, but it's a different situation when we create avatars of ourselves. It is easy to see the appeal. No more rushing to get camera ready for Zoom calls. No more worrying about lighting, background noise, or even your energy level. As AI workforce options expand, it becomes tempting to wonder if showing up personally is even necessary in every situation. Why AI Workforce Solutions Are Appealing In A Remote Work Era Remote work is not going away. In fact, many companies are embracing it more fully than ever. AI workforce solutions offer a way to stay visible and productive without the constant drain of live video appearances. There are practical benefits. Employees who feel uncomfortable on camera might feel more confident sending an avatar. Teams can create consistent training content without repeating themselves. Leaders can appear across multiple meetings at once without ever leaving their office. In a way, the rise of AI workforce tools feels like a natural next step in a world that is already blending digital and human experiences. What AI Workforce Trends Could Mean For Trust And Authenticity Even though the technology is impressive, it raises real questions about authenticity. If an AI avatar shows up for a meeting or delivers a message, how can you be sure the real person was involved? In education, although not allowed, there have already been examples of online professors hiring others to teach courses under their names. Imagine how easy it would be to use AI workforce avatars to replicate a presence without any personal involvement. How much trust might erode if we cannot tell whether we are interacting with a real colleague or just their digital twin. How AI Workforce Innovations Raise New Questions About Responsibility There is also the issue of responsibility. If an AI avatar says something inaccurate, misleading, or even offensive, who is accountable? Is it the employee, the company, or the technology provider? As AI workforce innovations become more common, the lines could blur quickly. In fields like customer service, sales, and leadership communication, getting it wrong could have serious consequences. The legal system has not fully caught up yet, leaving a lot of gray areas around what happens when avatars act on someone else's behalf. In the Carlin case, the lawsuit ended in a settlement, and the creators agreed to remove the content and stop using his likeness. It set an early precedent, but when people start creating avatars of themselves for work, it opens up a whole different category of questions the courts still haven't addressed. Are AI Workforce Avatars Making Human Connection Harder To Build? One thing to consider is the role imperfection plays in building trust. Live conversations are messy. People pause, stumble over words, laugh at unexpected moments, and show real emotion. Those small signs of humanity are part of what helps us connect. If AI workforce avatars start replacing more human interactions, will we lose something important? A perfectly polished video presentation can deliver information, but can it create real relationships? It is an open question, but it seems worth considering before we trade too much authenticity for convenience. Real Companies Are Already Using AI Workforce Avatars This may still feel futuristic, but some companies are already using AI avatars for real work. Synthesia is used by more than half of the Fortune 100, mostly for training videos and internal updates. BESTSELLER, a global fashion company, uses it to reach thousands of employees while cutting back on classroom time. Other platforms like Hour One and Colossyan are being used to speed up everything from compliance videos to investor updates. Companies like HP, BMW, and Vodafone are already exploring these tools. Most current examples focus on communication and training, but with this kind of momentum, it's not hard to imagine how quickly that could expand into meetings, customer service, or even leadership messaging. Even Zoom is experimenting with AI avatars. They are working on photorealistic avatar options that would let you record messages or participate in meetings asynchronously, which is something that takes all this to another level. We are not talking about future tech anymore. These tools are here, and companies are already testing how far they can go. What Companies Can Do To Prepare Now For An AI Workforce Whether or not companies adopt AI avatars this year, it makes sense to start talking about what this kind of presence means. Is it okay to use an avatar in a team meeting? When is live participation required? What kind of training should be offered to help people use these tools responsibly? Companies that begin defining expectations now will be in a better position later. It is easier to build trust when people know the rules and understand how these new tools fit into workplace culture. Final Thoughts On Where The AI Workforce Might Take Us The idea of outsourcing our real selves to technology is no longer just a movie plot. As AI workforce tools become more advanced and accessible, they are shaping the way businesses operate and how people show up professionally. There is no clear roadmap yet. Some companies will likely embrace AI workforce avatars quickly. Others will move more cautiously, trying to protect human connection wherever possible. As exciting as the technology is, I keep coming back to the same feeling I had when I first saw Surrogates. Just because we can send a version of ourselves into the world does not mean we always should. Maybe the real question is not whether avatars will become part of the AI workforce. It is how much of ourselves we are willing to hand over to them.
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
George Carlin warned us: When we ban words, we surrender freedom
In 1972, comedian George Carlin delivered one of the most iconic bits in stand-up history: 'Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Television.' It was a profanity-laced masterclass in satire, pointing out the absurdity of a society obsessed with policing language. The words in question were crass, sure, and some people undoubtedly found them offensive — but they weren't dangerous, by any reasonable standard. Banning them from the airwaves, as Carlin observed, gave them power they wouldn't have had otherwise. Fast-forward to today, and the list of forbidden words has changed, but the game hasn't. The U.S. government is once again policing language, this time on the websites of federal agencies. But the new 'dirty words' aren't profane. They're words like "diversity," "equity" and "inclusion." Words like 'women,' "LGBTQ," "immigrants" and "disability." They are basic, real-world terms used every single day by ordinary people, in everything from education to health care to workplace policy. Now, suddenly, they are deemed too controversial to say out loud. According to recent reporting from The New York Times, federal departments under the current administration are being quietly instructed to remove or replace this language. There are no detailed press releases laying out these changes. There are no official bans. Just a slow erasure of the vocabulary that recognizes inequity, and those impacted by it. But just as with Carlin's original list, banning these words doesn't make them go away. It only proves their power. And that's exactly why they're being targeted. These are the ones that make you laugh until you realize they're serious. Women: That's right. Half the population. A basic demographic. Too controversial, apparently. Disability: A term protected by law (thanks, ADA). Now also too edgy for a government webpage. Immigrants: You mean the people most of us citizens descended from, and the group that built much of our country? Also out. Sex: Not in the risqué, baby-making way, just the standard biological data point used in everything from medicine to surveys. Too messy, apparently. Tribal: Try writing about Native sovereignty or federal treaty obligations without this one. Good luck. These are the words that make it easier to name and fix what's broken. Which, of course, is why they're under attack. Systemic Racism: If you can't name it, you don't have to address it. That's the whole point. Equity: Not 'equality,' which is aspirational. Equity is about meeting people where they are. That scares people who benefit from the imbalance. Underserved: It's hard to justify budget cuts to public health and education if you're forced to acknowledge that some communities lack access. Inclusion: Heaven forbid we try to create cultures where everyone gets to participate and feels like they play an important role. Justice: Perhaps this is the most revealing of all. If the word 'justice' is too political, ask yourself who benefits when it disappears. And then there are the words they fear most: the ones that empower people, organize movements or point out the imbalance of power. These words aren't controversial because they're confusing or unclear — quite the opposite. They are controversial because they carry weight, demand change and acknowledge lived realities. LGBTQ: It says 'you exist, and you matter' to a community of millions. And that is somehow too controversial. Diversity: Once a word embraced by corporations and government alike, based on empirical evidence that more diverse teams make smarter decisions. Now labeled a threat. Antiracism: If racism is bad, then antiracism must be… also bad? The logic doesn't hold, but the fearmongering works. Cultural Competency: A foundational concept in health care, education and law enforcement. This term is meant to describe understanding and dealing with people from all kinds of different backgrounds — and that's a direct threat to willful ignorance. Allyship: You don't have to fall within one of these groups to care about what happens to them and use your privilege to advocate for them. Perhaps it isn't surprising to learn that makes some people squirm. History tells us that the first step toward controlling thought is controlling language. In totalitarian regimes, censored vocabularies create the illusion of consensus and the impossibility of dissent. No words, no resistance. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's a tactic. If you remove the words that describe injustice, you are attempting to make injustice invisible. If you silence the terms used to advocate for equity, then the concept itself becomes suspect. If you erase identity from public policy, then the people who hold those identities lose visibility — and power. Company leaders are watching this language shift closely. Many have already pulled back on inclusion efforts, often citing potentially real legal concerns. Some are clearly responding to genuine regulatory risk — especially those with federal contracts. But let's be honest: Many such companies and their leaders are also reacting to noise, and reacting out of fear. In a society where many leaders are risk-averse, conservative and conflict-shy by nature, the temptation to 'just drop the language' is strong. But such instincts have consequences. When we avoid speaking or writing certain words, it becomes much easier to avoid the work behind the words. And when institutions abandon shared vocabulary, they abandon shared purpose. Some argue that the left has censored language too, by pushing too hard for 'woke' terms that are understood as more accurate, inclusive or respectful. And yes, language evolves. 'Handicapped' became 'people with disabilities.' 'Indian' shifted to 'Native American' or 'Indigenous.' These aren't bans; they're cultural corrections rooted in empathy and dignity. You are free to choose whether you use these terms or not, although you can't control how other people may view you for those the difference: Choosing kinder language isn't enforced by law. Use an older term and you may offend someone, or even be called out for it. But banning words that give voice to the marginalized from official language is an attempt to silence opposition and, literally, to control the narrative. Let's not forget what this is really about. These aren't abstract concepts. These words represent real people, employees, clients, neighbors, citizens. When we erase the language of inclusion, we take a crucial step toward erasing the people that language is meant to protect. We're telling those people, in no uncertain terms, that they're not worth naming. We can't let that slide. Not in public policy, not in the workplace, not in daily conversation. Say the words. Say them loudly. Say them with clarity and care — not because they're fashionable or polite, but because they're real. Because they describe who we are, what we face and what we hope to build. As Carlin reminded us: Words are all we have. Let's not let them disappear.
Yahoo
15-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Detroit TV will air 1975's 'Saturday Night Live' premiere on Saturday -- unlike 50 years ago
To celebrate the 50th anniversary of "Saturday Night Live," NBC will show the first-ever episode of the landmark series at 11:30 p.m. Saturday. "SNL" made its debuts on Oct. 11, 1975, with George Carlin as host and Billy Preston and Janis Ian as musical guests. Detroit's NBC affiliate, WDIV-TV, will be airing the original episode Saturday night — unlike in 1975, when it chose not to be part of TV's comedy revolution. Other NBC stations aired what was then titled "NBC's Saturday Night," which began with head writer Michael O'Donoghue playing John Belushi's English-as-a-second-language tutor in a skit called "Wolverines." As Belushi himself might have said, but, nooooooooo, WDIV wasn't among those stations. When "SNL" first started, it was such an unknown factor that WDIV — then known as WWJ-TV — didn't carry the first two seasons and let WKBD-TV (Channel 50), a fuzzy UHF station at the time (ask your grandparents) pick them up instead. Why? There are different theories on the reasons for ignoring a show that is still going strong after a half-century of irreverence (and a show that made a star that first season out of metro Detroit's own beloved Gilda Radner). According to 2022's "Going 4 It: The Inside story of the Rise of WDIV," the decision was a matter of taste. The station "banned it from their airwaves because it was too sarcastic, too satirical, too funny, too smart," said Joe Lapointe, a former Free Press sportswriter, in the documentary. More: How Harrison Ford, Jeep ended up in this year's Super Bowl ads More: 1 goal eludes Flint boxer Claressa Shields, but she holds out hope But in 1977, Free Press television writer Bettelou Peterson wrote that Channel 4's choice to skip the early seasons of "SNL" had nothing to do with its sometimes controversial content. According to Peterson, Channel 4 decided to run movies instead in the late-night timeslot after considering the cost factors, including the profits from commercials. Since NBC wouldn't allow the show to be taped for a delayed viewing, the network, with Channel 4's permission, persuaded Channel 50 to pick up "SNL," according to Peterson. It's not clear exactly when Channel 50 picked up "SNL.' But according to the Free Press TV listings for the historic Oct. 11, 1975, premiere date, Channel 4 aired the 1959 rom-com "Pillow Talk" with Doris Day and Rock Hudson at 11:30 p.m., while Channel 50 had a 1954 movie called 'Track of the Cat" starring Robert Mitchum. It's a Detroit-related footnote in the history of "SNL." Just don't get us started on WDIV's decision to delay NBC's "Late Night With David Letterman" in the 1980s. Contact Detroit Free Press pop culture critic Julie Hinds at jhinds@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: It's the 50th anniversary of Detroit TV not airing the 'SNL' premiere
USA Today
14-02-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Is 'SNL' new this Saturday? No, but you can watch the 1st episode of the show ever.
Hear this story There is no new episode of "Saturday Night Live" this Saturday night, but there is a special re-run to watch ahead of Sunday's 50th anniversary special for the long-running comedy show. On Feb. 15, NBC will re-air the first "SNL" ever from Oct. 11, 1975. Comedian George Carlin, who died in 2008, hosted the 50-year-old episode. American singers and songwriters Billy Preston and Janis Ian preformed as musical guests. Also appearing on the show that night was comedian Andy Kaufman and a sketch from Muppets creator Jim Henson. Ahead of that, NBC will air the documentary "Ladies & Gentlemen … 50 Years of SNL Music." Here's what to expect for "SNL" on Feb. 15. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. 'SNL' 50th anniversary special:Which celebrities will appear on the show? How to watch the first-ever 'SNL' The first 1975 "SNL" episode will air on NBC on Saturday, Feb. 15th at 11:30 p.m. ET/PT. Viewers can also stream it and past episodes on Peacock. Cast of the first 'SNL' episode Originally titled 'NBC's Saturday Night,' the premiere telecast gave audiences its first look at the cast dubbed the "Not Ready for Prime Time Players," which included: Dan Aykroyd John Belushi Chevy Chase Jane Curtin Garrett Morris Laraine Newman Gilda Radner Lineup for 'SNL' 50th anniversary celebration This weekend is packed full of programming to mark the show's 50th anniversary, starting Friday, Feb. 14 with "SNL 50: The Homecoming Concert," which will stream live on Peacock at 8 p.m. ET/5 p.m. PT, with fan screening events in Select IMAX Theaters at Regal Cinemas. Hosted by Jimmy Fallon, the concert will showcase performances from Arcade Fire, Backstreet Boys, Bad Bunny, Bonnie Raitt, Brandi Carlile and more. On Sunday, Feb, 16, the much-anticipated "SNL 50: The Anniversary Special" is set to air at 8 p.m. ET/5 p.m. PT on NBC. It can also be streamed on Peacock. The three-hour comedy show will air live from Studio 8H in Rockefeller Center. NBC has announced several guest appearances for the special, including former hosts, cast members, writers and musical guests, in addition to comedy A-listers. We occasionally recommend interesting products and services. If you make a purchase by clicking one of the links, we may earn an affiliate fee. USA TODAY Network newsrooms operate independently, and this doesn't influence our coverage. Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at nalund@ and follow her on X @nataliealund.
Chicago Tribune
13-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
Column: 50 years of ‘Saturday Night Live,' half fascinating, half underwhelming
If it felt like 'Saturday Night Live' took to the airwaves in 1975 with a renegade spirit, 50 years later it's become not only a late-night tradition, but traditional. Hitting the half-century mark is a milestone. But a show doesn't stick around that long because it's willing to experiment or step on toes, but because it is fully embraced by the establishment. That's the likely unintended subtext throughout the various behind-the-scenes documentaries produced by NBC ahead of the show's 50th anniversary special airing Sunday. These are in-house projects that stay on-message — warm and laudatory — but they are not without their fascinating moments. All can be streamed on Peacock. An additional programming note: The first episode of 'Saturday Night Live,' which originally aired on Oct. 11, 1975, with host George Carlin and musical guests Billy Preston and Janis Ian, will air on NBC in 'SNL's' usual late-night timeslot this weekend, in place of a new episode. 'Ladies & Gentlemen… 50 Years of SNL Music' Co-directed by Oz Rodriguez and Ahmir Thompson (aka Questlove), the two-hour documentary includes a remarkable 7-minute montage of 'SNL's' musical performances that opens the film. But it also puts a long-overdue focus on the show's musical history, which tends to get sidelined, and it's a good reminder of the sheer variety of music that has been featured over the years. The opening montage blends clips in a way that segues brilliantly from one to the next, as if the songs were sonic cousins that should have been considered in tandem all along. It's the kind of creative musical gambit we rarely see on TV, put together people who clearly love all genres of music and see how they're interrelated. The show's opening theme song is instantly recognizable — and in no way hummable. And yet it works. Here's how Jack White describes it: There is no consistent melody, 'it's just a wailing saxophone of someone being taken out of the building playing saxophone, by the police, and the microphone's still connected.' As someone points out, the similarities between music and comedy are many: Timing, cadence and misdirection. Not mentioned: The prolific use of drugs, especially in the '70s. But this is a cleaned-up version of 'SNL's' past, so … In the show's first two decades, it was more likely to expose lesser-known bands to a wider audience. Devo in 1978. Talking Heads in 1979. The B-52s in 1980. Funky Four Plus One in 1981 (the first hip hop group to perform on the show, thanks to host Debbie Harry using her clout to get them on). An appearance on national TV used to have a big effect. I wonder if that's still true, but with fewer places for singers and musicians to perform on live TV, the show still holds relevance in that regard. As 'SNL' increasingly became mainstream, the documentary is a reminder that the musical acts retained an unpredictable and rebellious edge for a bit longer. 'SNL50: Beyond Saturday Night Live' The four-part docuseries is hit-and-miss, but maybe that's fitting since the unevenness mirrors the show itself. This should feel more momentous, especially in the streaming era when a long run might be seven seasons. (According to a recent report in Vulture, 'SNL' remains 'consistently profitable despite being incredibly expensive to produce' at $4 million an episode.) Episode 1: 'Five Minutes': The show's audition process is infamous by this point. Each person steps on an empty stage and performs for a small group of stone-faced decision-makers. The awkward silence is true in some cases, but other times you can hear off-camera guffaws. Cast members (mostly from the past 20 years) reminisce about the experience as they watch footage of their auditions. Some are cringe, but a handful are surprisingly good, including Will Ferrell, who was fully-formed from the start. There are the people who didn't make the cut but went on to significant careers anyway: Jim Carrey, Jennifer Coolidge, Mindy Kaling, Kevin Hart, Stephen Colbert. The Dick Ebersol years — when executive producer Lorne Michaels left the show from 1981 to 1984 — might as well not exist, and there are only brief snippets of the original Not Ready for Primetime Players, including Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtain. It's such a weirdly recent assemblage who are featured. The '70s, '80s and most of the '90s are elided, even though the whole point is that the show has been around for 50 years Of the show's casting and talent staff interviewed, you notice the dearth of Black people and other people of color and it makes you wonder in what ways — subconscious or otherwise — that's affected the show's lineup over the years. Ego Nwodim, who joined the cast in 2018, offers some insight into that, albeit indirectly: 'I felt like I could do the job in a way that would make it easier for the next Black woman. And I say this not to say that every day I'd go in thinking, 'This is for Black women!' — I wasn't. But I wanted the audience to have a point of reference of a Black woman they felt had the skill set to do the job and their brains could go, 'Oh yeah, she belongs.' And then the next Black woman who comes after me, my hope is her time is 5% easier because of the work I did there.' She says she benefits from the Black women who came before her. There were just five. In 50 years. In case you were wondering if nepotism is part of the 'SNL' fabric, of course it is! We learn that George Wendt called 'SNL' about considering his nephew Jason Sudeikis. Episode 2: 'More Cowbell': The weakest of the episodes, it functions as an anatomy of a sketch. Specifically the 'More Cowbell' sketch (technically called 'Recording Session') from 2000 starring Christopher Walken and envisioned by Will Ferrell as an absurdist version of Blue Öyster Cult recording the band's 1976 hit '(Don't Fear) The Reaper.' The sketch is fine. Funny even! I'm not sure it's interesting enough to warrant a one-hour, semi-tongue-in-cheek episode about the making of it. Surely there were other sketches with better backstories. Episode 3: 'Written By: A Week Inside the 'SNL' Writers Room': This would be compelling if James Franco hadn't already made a documentary called 'Saturday Night' documenting the same process. It's embarrassing how alike the two projects are. For a more comprehensive, warts-and-all look at the show, you can check out the nonfiction book 'Live from New York: An Uncensored Story of Saturday Night Live as Told by Its Stars, Writers, and Guests.' There's also a new biography about 80-year-old Michaels by Susan Morrison called 'Lorne: The Man Who Invented 'Saturday Night Live'' that broaches topics these documentaries studiously avoid, including staff pushback Michaels received when he booked Donald Trump to host during his campaign for president in 2015: Despite Michaels' insistence that the show was non-partisan, the writers felt he was putting his thumb on the scale and ''helping' Trump — a sentiment that was only bolstered amongst staff who recalled to Morrison that Michaels had wanted to 'tone down a harsh Trump sketch' and allow him to show 'some charm.'' The writers are droll about their second-tier status. 'I believe our names roll by extremely fast over shots of the castmates hugging and meeting the famous people,' says head writer Streeter Seidell. A lot of famous people were writers on the show — but only became famous once they left the show and found opportunities on camera, including Will Arnett, Larry David, John Mulaney, Sarah Silverman. The writers produce their own sketches, meaning they write the scripts but are also responsible for helping to shape the performances and working with the rest of the crew on the sets and costumes. Louie Zakarian, head of the makeup department, has been building prosthetics on the show for nearly 30 years. 'We did a 'Game of Thrones' sketch and we had one night to build a dragon,' he says. I would have loved an episode focusing on how these art departments actually function on such a short timeframe, creating everything from scratch each week. 'You are fully in charge of three to four minutes of live network television,' says Mulaney about the autonomy writers are given. 'NBC had nothing to say about it. Nothing. And when they did, we'd tell them no. We're like 25 and we'd go, 'We're doing it.'' It's a weird framing considering the show isn't in the business of controversy or boundary pushing. Writer Celeste Yim's path to the show: 'I went to NYU for playwriting and was like, 'Great, this is it, I'm going to be a playwright and write about things that really matter.' And then basically immediately got the most corporate comedy job in the world.' This is the first time someone actually names it instead of buying into the lore — 'SNL' may be desperate to style itself as bold, but at the end of the day, it's just corporate. More than anything, you feel a deep sympathy for the writers. They seem beaten down and miserable, in it for the rare adrenaline rush of a sketch getting big laughs, but also mostly because it's the kind of resume item that can lead to other jobs down the line. There's nothing easy about comedy and the pressure to write funny material on a short deadline is daunting. I think it's OK that a lot of it doesn't work. But you wonder if the environment fostered by Michaels is the only way to do it. (As the aforementioned Vulture piece points out: 'His age has added an undercurrent of queasiness to the 50th anniversary victory lap as Michaels's empire rolls on without a firm succession plan. For better or worse, the machinery of American comedy has built up around him, and no one knows how the laugh factory will function if Michaels retires — or what it means if he chooses to cling to the show into his twilight years.') Here's Tina Fey: 'The rewrite tables were tough. They were grouchy. People would take the rundown of the show and just go through it, sketch by sketch, and make fun of it. Make fun of the title. Goof on it, goof on it, goof on it. You would leave the room fully knowing that that writers room was taking a (dump) on it while you were gone, and it just was kind of the way it was.' 'I don't know if it's the same anymore,' she says (the documentary doesn't bother providing an answer). 'Maybe it should get that way again a little bit,' Fey adds, and it would have been enlightening to hear why she thinks that kind of backbiting is beneficial to creativity. The idea that people can only do their best work under those circumstances probably deserves to be challenged. Episode 4: 'Season 11: The Weird Year': Finally, Ebersol's existence is (barely!) acknowledged, if only because Season 11 marked Michaels' return to 'SNL' as executive producer, taking over for Ebersol. Michaels' eye for talent has always been one of his strengths, but you could say the same of Ebersol, who assembled casts that included Eddie Murphy, Billy Crystal and Martin Short. Well, regardless, Michaels cleared house when he came back, hiring a number of performers — including Randy Quaid, Anthony Michael Hall and Robert Downey Jr. — who had little or no previous sketch comedy experience. The episode is the only one that even vaguely criticizes Michaels, but you really have to read between the lines because he's portrayed as a godlike figure. (Even at this point, he was already living a certain lifestyle; people remember being called out for meetings by the pool at his house in the Hamptons.) That Michaels failed to create an environment in which a talent like Damon Wayans could thrive is such a big mark against him (Michaels fired him that season). There's a lot of emphasis that the show faltered during Season 11 (tensions between the writers and the cast is alluded to) but the documentary and its participants don't analyze more deeply the why of it all. At any rate, the season ended with a sketch that literally envisioned the cast set on fire. I had forgotten that Michaels brought Francis Ford Coppola on to direct an episode that season, with Coppola on camera for some of it. It's such a departure for the show and just the kind of experiment you wish the show had embraced in the years since. Jon Lovitz has the best observation about the show, then and now: 'We're live but we're not taking advantage of it.'
