To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.
No thanks.
Maroon 5 stinks. Who cares if they're popular? Big Macs are popular. That doesn't mean I'd eat that ####.
Ok, everyone stay bitter and locked in a time warp where only things that came out from when you 13-25 are cool and good.I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.
In what conceivable way is Maroon 5 relevant again?
The show's target market isn't 30- and 40-somethings who yearn for the days of Eddie Murphy and Phil Hartman. We tune in regardless (put the kids to bed, have a little dinner, couple glasses of wine, watch the news, tune in to SNL - typical Saturday night unless you're Arizona Ron). The show is trying to grow the next generation fanbase, which has got to be pretty hard these days given alternatives. To do so, SNL has to bring on guys like Levine that the teen and 20-something audience recognize. Once in a while we get thrown a bone like a Christopher Walken or Barkley. We watch because we want to see a hit like the Cowbell skit, but Walken sucked last time, as did Barkley. As did De Niro. Former A-list actors are not locks for a hit show. And musical peformers have a pretty solid record. Timberlake is excellent. Mick Jagger was great last year. (I recall Elton John hosting, but don't recall if I liked him).
I don't think the blame rests on the guests. It's the cast. A good cast can save a lousy guest, rarely can it be the other way around. This cast is not good.
Hader, who can be really funny, in that screaming sketch last weekend was way over the top. Cringe-worthy.