Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mark Zuckerberg Makes Surprise SNL Cameo

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the looked-just-like-andy-samberg dept.

Facebook 96

theodp writes "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a surprise cameo appearance on Saturday Night Live during host Jesse Eisenberg's monologue. The real Zuckerberg appeared on stage with both his movie (The Social Network's Eisenberg) and TV (SNL's Andy Samberg) counterparts. The Social Network received 8 Oscar nominations last week, although the Academy snubbed KDE 3's performance."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's "Saturday Live?" (1)

kriston (7886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056584)

What's "Saturday Live?"

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056618)

What's "Saturday Live?"

Saturday Live was a UK TV series that ran from 1985 to 1987 on Channel 4 [wikipedia.org] . It appears that Mr. Zuckerberg has himself a time machine. The case is afoot, can he be stopped before his time traveling makes Facebook the most powerful entity on the planet?! (sure explains how we've gotten to where we're at)

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35058100)

Well he certainly does have "Loadsa money!!!!"

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058164)

I have traveled to the future only to learn that there isn't a way to travel to the future. So it didn't happen.

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35059414)

The case is afoot, can he be stopped before his time traveling makes Facebook the most powerful entity on the planet?! (sure explains how we've gotten to where we're at)

BBC? Time Travel? WHO is to blame? :)

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35056656)

What's Facebook?

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35059060)

It's a website that the scumbag jewboy Fuckerberg stole from the guy who actually created it.

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056732)

It's a new reality show where five businessmen live together in the same Beijing apartment and try to impress Hu Jintao (via boring MMO-esque tasks and videophone interviews) with their managerial acumen, all for a chance to stea^Wcreate and direct that country's version of Saturday Night Live and get screwed stupid by an ex-Disney starlet.

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (0)

MichaelKristopeit401 (1976824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057324)

why would a web site that claims to offer "news" not engage in fact checking before publishing untruths?

slashdot = stagnated

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35059688)

If you hate it so much, why are you here?

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (1)

MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35059972)

you feel hatred? that is very telling.

why do you cower in my shadow? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (1)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057500)

i think you can could[sic] ask them to make a correction.

Re:What's "Saturday Live?" (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057544)

Saturday Live means that you are going live, away from the keyboard. Applies to other days too.

no digg (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35056602)

News for nerds? NO
Stuff that matters? NO
Does slashdot suck ass? YES

Re:no digg (1)

imboboage0 (876812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056772)

Then leave. Nobody is making you stay.

Re:no digg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057750)

go fuck yourself in the ass with an old nintendo cart you aspie faggot!

Re:no digg (1)

jason.sweet (1272826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058910)

go fuck yourself in the ass with an old nintendo cart you aspie faggot!

Best comment ever!

Thanks. That made my day.

Re:no digg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35059430)

I sympathise.

Why? Because my day started out as a bag of rancid dingo spunk and rapidly went downhill, but it did fuck-all for me.

Re:no digg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35059174)

Slashdot: TMZ for Aspie Faggots

Unpossible! (3, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056646)

Better summary: A decaying remnant of a once funny show hosts an actor from a crap movie and the douche the movie was about.
[claps hands and squeals with glee... not]

Re:Unpossible! (1)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057554)

Zukerberg is trying to salvage his reputation with this appearance (among other things), but the world knows he's a douche.

I wonder how forgiving people will be.

Re:Unpossible! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058878)

"Zukerberg is trying to salvage his reputation with this appearance (among other things), but the world knows he's a douche."

So what...look at all the money he has. Many people do the douche thing for free

Hell, I'd turn up the 'asshole' factor as much as needed if I could somehow figure a way to make loads of money....most people would I dare say.

Re:Unpossible! (3, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057670)

Better summary: A decaying remnant of a once funny show hosts an actor from a crap movie and the douche the movie was about.
[claps hands and squeals with glee... not]

People have been saying that exact same thing since about December, 1975. But somehow, the show is still on the air.

Why is that? I think that it's because the episodes seem better with age. When they think about the "good old days", they remember the 5% of sketches that were truly funny. When they see new episodes, they focus on the 95% that are mediocre or worse. So, people always think that the show is "going down the tubes".

However, just like always, there is enough good stuff sprinkled in there to keep an audience, and they'll still be able to glean enough material from old seasons to put out more "Best of $RETIRED_CAST_MEMBER" DVDs.

Re:Unpossible! (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058170)

Zuckerberg is younger than me and I was born in 1980. Are you sure you got your facts straight about people calling Zuckerberg a douche since the 70's? Maybe his parents were douches too so that last name got stuck with douches or something?

Re:Unpossible! (2)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058294)

One of the attributes of intelligence is a capability for inference, which allows one to develop generalized concepts from experience with particular instances. I suggest you check it out.

Re:Unpossible! (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058656)

Now you are talking about army generals. Sorry, I am a computer programmer and know nothing about concepts it takes to be a general in the army.

Re:Unpossible! (1)

Krater76 (810350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35062104)

People have been saying that exact same thing since about December, 1975. But somehow, the show is still on the air.

SNL has stretches where it's good, sometimes great, and just plain bad. Checking Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for the cast list for the years really shows the ebb and flow. Obviously the original cast was great - iconic. After that, in the 80s there are very few recognizable names in there. Eddie Murphy, Martin Short, Billy Crystal were the very few that had any great comedy chops. Everyone agrees that the Joe Piscopo era was pretty bad. The 90s were once again pretty good: they had Phil Hartman, Adam Sandler, Mike Myers, Kevin Nealon, Chris Farley, Will Ferrell, Darrell Hammond.

The current batch is pretty terrible, bordering on unwatchable. There's little in what makes comedy - most are tired bits that we saw in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. When an opportunity arises for them to make fun of something politically, they completely whiff. Ask yourself this: The Daily Show and Colbert Report can make funny and insightful political satire 4 days a week for a combined hour, why can't SNL do this for a single 90 minute show every week. It should be even easier since SNL isn't constrained to just be politics. Instead of good political satire, we are forced to watch Fred Armisen do the worst Obama impersonation of anyone on TV. There's just no edginess in the skits.

I think the strength of SNL has always been their star. It was John Belushi the beginning. Then it was Eddie Murphy in the 80s. Phil Hartman was the early 90s with Will Ferrell in the late 90s. I guess Tina Fey was their star in the early 00s, but I really can't pinpoint any actual actors from this time (she was more a writer). The problem for the last few years has been their current 'star' Kristen Wiig. Her skits are blatantly unfunny and repetitive. You only hear the complementary chuckles from the live studio audience. Yet, every week we get more and more Kristen Wiig. The focus should be on Andy Samberg although he's terrible at the live acting bit. The most memorable bits from the last 4 or 5 years have all been from Samberg's Digital Shorts.

The SNL I watch is on the DVR - the way it should be. Give each skit about 30 seconds, unless it's funny fast forward to the next. Problem is, these days it's almost a waste of DVR space since there's about 5 minutes (if that) of comedy in each episode. I imagine it keeps its ratings because of the DVR era, more people watching it the next day and fast forward through it.

Re:Unpossible! (1)

Phoghat (1288088) | more than 2 years ago | (#35066842)

Knock, knock

Who's there?

Candygram

True.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35056666)

KDE 4 was much better, although only after a few versions to fix the massive amount of bugs.

Re:True.... (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063542)

KDE4 was also not available at the time the movie was set in.

KDE3 performance??? (1)

crank-a-doodle (1973286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056678)

I can''t make out if this is some facetious humor, but what does he mean when he says " snubbed KDE 3's performance."

Re:KDE3 performance??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35056758)

Maybe you should click the link and find out.

Re:KDE3 performance??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35056778)

I can''t make out if this is some facetious humor, but what does he mean when he says " snubbed KDE 3's performance."

Let me take off those geek blinders for you. Yes, it is a joke about how KDE3 made an appearance (aka, a "performance") in the Social Network movie. It was not a comment about how well KDE is optimized (or "performs"). It's sometimes useful to try to look at words and phrases in different contexts instead of trying to pigeonhole them into the first one that comes to mind.

Re:KDE3 performance??? (2)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056820)

Gnome got ignored by the academy for its role in Antitrust too, so I guess its even handed.

Re:KDE3 performance??? (1)

Handover Phist (932667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056892)

What you think it means. The OP appears to believe that the KDE desktop systems appearance in the movie deserved some sort of kudos. There is a link up there that will tell you all sorts of stuff about it. Just click the bit that reads "KDE 3's performance".

OK. Coffee. Now.

Re:KDE3 performance??? (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057088)

Well, did it appear in the movie or not? TFA says "Of course, this scene is probably completely different in the finished film, KDE will likely be replaced by an Apple desktop, seeing as the characters are seen using Apple computers a couple of times in the trailer." I'll refuse to see the what is likely a really crappy movie myself to find out whether they made such a faggot stunt or not.

Re:KDE3 performance??? (1)

crank-a-doodle (1973286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35062916)

well as a matter of fact, it wasn't...

Re:KDE3 performance??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057380)

The submitter means that some blogger thought that he might have seen a little KDE in a really fuzzy screen capture of a pre-release trailer for the movie.

I guess the submitter included that little "joke" because he wanted to find a way to make a lame two day old story even lamer.

This was news on Saturday night (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056704)

This is Monday morning. The MSM already spent the weekend hyping this up.

Re:This was news on Saturday night (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056890)

Well, now that the MSM is leveraging "web 2.0" so heavily, the only thing left for Slashdot to do in order to differentiate itself is to let the MSM scrape the web 2.0 stuff for them, then scrape that. This is web 3.0. Welcome to the future!

Re:This was news on Saturday night (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056940)

+1 It's late Monday morning. Anybody who would have cared would have known about this days ago

Re:This was news on Saturday night (1, Offtopic)

MichaelKristopeit403 (1978294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057362)

how about rob malda and his crew of lackeys spend less time making the interface even more uglier and unusable, and more time on fact checking and editing submissions?

slashdot = stagnated.

Re:This was news on Saturday night (3, Informative)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35059604)

Actually this was news Friday morning... And it is not really a "surprising cameo" when SNL was trying to get him to come and we knew about it beforehand...
That said, it is a shame that SNL has lost its mojo, it used to be an amazing show.

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20029974-36.html [cnet.com]

And this is nerd new how, exactly? (4, Insightful)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056768)

And this is nerd new how, exactly?

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35056796)

And this is nerd new how, exactly?

LIKE

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (0)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056842)

If it were Jobs you would be all over it.

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056900)

No. I most certainly would not.

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (2)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056844)

well, I consider it "news" that facebook has it's own icon...that's something I really wish I could un-see...

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (0)

lexluther (529642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056968)

+1

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35056986)

They could at least merge Zuckerberg's face with that of a Klingon. . .

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (2)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057168)

The Klingon fans would be pissed.

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063242)

Good point. I bet Zuck's face could be doctored to look strikingly like Palpatine's. . .there's an idea.

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058316)

After the social media bubble bursts, we'll look back and laugh at it...to most of us it will also be a sad reminder that we didn't become the next generation of dot-com boomers...

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (1)

Halifax Samuels (1124719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057104)

It was just posted here an hour ago. You think that qualifies as OLD?

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057234)

Applying for that Slashdot censorship job, huh?

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058032)

It's not news. It's more frontpage trash that's completely irrelevant because the approved submitters are trying to bring up facebook, as if that makes /. look hip. Heck the story about mexican drug smugglers using catapults is more interesting and relevant to the core purpose of the site.

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35058920)

It gives you something to complain about. Judging by the comments here lately, that's all it means to be a nerd.

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35058942)

Good point.
The only reason it would be nerd is because the Digital shorts, like 'laser cats' that Andy Samberg does is real nerdy. Cats shooting lasers? How more nerdy can you get! perfect plot for a comic book!
New? (and I like that slip), This is only 1.5 days old. My local news covered it 12 and 18 hours ago. In slasdot standards, not that bad, often the stories are 3 or 4 dats late.
News? Like I said, my local NBC station did cover it, as I am sure most other NBC stations did it. Did comcast buy slashdot? That would be news!

Re:And this is nerd new how, exactly? (1)

FLEABttn (1466747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35060168)

You're a nerd, he's a nerd, that makes you two practically bros.

Jewish supremacists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35056816)

Of course The Social Network received 8 Oscar nominations - it was written by a JEW, about a JEW, what more do you need?
I wonder how much longer the 'goyim' will continue wasting their money on the Jewish film industry, while the Jews run our banks, counterfeit billions of dollars (or trillions of dollars even) and award themselves 'bailouts' because they're 'too big to fail'. (That actually should read 'too JEWISH to go broke'.)

Re:Jewish supremacists (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057206)

[...] and continuing with our list of idiots, others were saying: "Of course The Social Network received 8 Oscar nominations - it was written by a WHITE, about a WHITE, what more do you need?"

But the fact remains that it is natural for The Social Network to have received 8 Oscar nominations - it was written by a digital* mammal, about a digital mammal, what more do we need?

Wishing you a good day, this was Dolphin News.

*Translator's note: digital as in "mammal with digits".

Re:Jewish supremacists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057700)

Like I said: "I wonder how much longer the 'goyim' will continue wasting their money on the Jewish film industry, while the Jews run our banks, counterfeit billions of dollars (or trillions of dollars even) and award themselves 'bailouts' because they're 'too big to fail'. (That actually should read 'too JEWISH to go broke'.)"

Nothing to say about that, I see.

Facebook (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35056866)

still not on it. an old girlfriend was able to track down my brother via facebook. will never sign up. can't even figure out what the fuss is about.

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057434)

Thanks for letting us know.

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057462)

Man you are old.

Re:Facebook (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063568)

I resisted for ages, however if you have friends out there in real life it is convenient to use to keep track of what they're up to and also to let your friends know about events and keep track of invites etc.

Its a tool. If you use it badly it can do bad things. Like a bandsaw or a hammer. If you use it appropriately it can help make things simple.

This is just a slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057062)

...for some show that nobody watches or cares about.

Not good (1)

Halifax Samuels (1124719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057084)

Zuckerberg is a VERY poor actor.

Re:Not good (1)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057184)

What a got from his performance is that he's a HUGE nerd. He looks and acts like the kid in middle school that all the other nerds made fun of. I used to doubt the whole myth that he created Facebook to get laid, but after seeing him in action I kind of believe it now. It's not like he was going to be getting a lot of dates based on his suave personality.

Re:Not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064812)

He looks and acts like the kid in middle school...

Darn, then he has more social skills than we do.

Re:Not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057356)

I dunno; I liked him well enough in Zombieland...

Re:Not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35058132)

I'd give you mod points for that or whatever if I'd actually been arsed to find out how all that shit works.

Actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35058244)

Zuckerberg is a VERY rich poor actor.

Live From New York? (1)

WhiteLudaFan (634444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057132)

When did they stop saying, "Live from New York, its Saturday Night Live!"?

Re:Live From New York? (1)

tresstatus (260408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057256)

When did they stop saying, "Live from New York, its Saturday Night Live!"?

they didn't?

Re:Live From New York? (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057268)

Not that I was SNL much anymore (due more to me getting older and struggling to stay awake that late) but I always thought the saying was "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night".

Re:Live From New York? (1)

burris (122191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058088)

They changed it after receiving a memo from the office of redundancy office who sent a memo telling them to change it to "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!"

Re:Live From New York? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35058150)

It's because they outsourced the show to china.

Re:Live From New York? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35060514)

Never said that. "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!" is what they've said... and still do... in the pre-monologue skit.

heh (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057342)

fitting the stupid facebook icon isnt working

Can't see it (0)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057348)

I can't see the video in the article's link from my third world country (UK, europe);
but my guess is I am not missing much: jews and more jews blowing each other's horns about their great financial and entertainment success... nothing new then.

Re:Can't see it (1)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35060366)

You, sir, are a turd.

KDE (1)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057350)

Well KDE 3 could get best supporting role, but its performance is steady and not very flashy. They tried KDE 4.0 but found it a bit of a prima donna, with an unstable temperament. I am not sure *nix is going to regain the heady glory days such as with Sandra Bullock in The Net, though Ubuntu made a debut on the small screen with Big Bang Theory.

Phillip.

Re:KDE (1)

Rossjman1 (1272538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057762)

Oh Ubuntu you are my favorite Linux-based operating system.

Sheldon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057922)

I had Sheldon pegged for an OpenBSD guy.

Posting AC because I don't like this new slashcode.

Thanks, Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057390)

Something unimportant happened on Saturday, and I'm being reminded of it Monday. What would I do if I didn't have such an informative and belated story in my RSS this morning?

I don't know, maybe I'd hear about something important, like the cast of The Jersey Shore got drunk.

dot dot dot (since /. doesn't read "." as text) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057478)

who cares?

exclusive (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057562)

In The Social Network (which Zuckerberg says is fiction) he said people wanted to be in the clubs because they are exclusive. How exclusive a cameo in SNL?
(especially by a software guy)

Re:exclusive (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35057840)

Well, he's still not a member of the Five Timers Club [dailymotion.com] .

Oh, please, call me 'Mister Steve Martin'.

.

Re:exclusive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35057878)

That part is made up, like a lot of the movie (the reviews say that anyway). There's a Zuckerberg quote online somewhere that says he didn't care about finals clubs just likes to build things.

What was with the cue cards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35058090)

Why did it look like they placed Zuckerberg's cue cards on a second floor balcony? Every time he had to look toward his lines it looked like he was staring off into space.

Way to land the big "scoop", fan boy! (1)

spads (1095039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35058876)

Think we might add "fan boy" as a new category?

huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35060018)

why the f*ck is this news? srsly, wasn't britney spears getting out of a car at that time?

Jesse Eisenberg Looks and sounds like John Carmack (1)

Ledskof (169553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35060852)

Jesse Eisenberg Looks and sounds like John Carmack.
He'd the candidate if someone decided to make a movie about JC.

Berg (1)

Pseudonymus Bosch (3479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35061646)

Zuckerberg, Eisenberg, Semberg. Does the role require to have a surname ending in "berg"?

Re:Berg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35065106)

We are Zucker of Berg. Resistance is futile. You will be profiled.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?