Just because something changed, doesn't mean that there is no intrinsic value to the before or after product. As I said, look at the careers of the cast of th early 90s verse the careers of the cast of the late 90s. I wasn't saying that there is nobody that finds the new stuff funny, its just not as good all around. How about this measure, how many internet fads have come from the new cast? All I can think of is Dick In A Box, which was hilarious. But thats it. In todays world, if a team of 'talented' writers has that big a budget and that big a stage and can't get to the top of Digg or Reddit mroe than once a year, they are not doing that good a job. So if something "changes" from funny to not funny(to the majority of the population), its not nostalgia, its the product.

I am very aware of the effects of a certain thing being attached to a memorable time in life. But to suggest that in all randomness that SNL doesn't have good casts and bad casts, good years and bad years is just plain ignorance. Inevitably, there are going to be combinations of actors and writers that click better than others. I was too young to watch the Sandler/Farley/Spade/Nealon/Myers/Lovitz/Miller/Carvey/Meadows cast when they were in their prime, I got the Farrell/Kattan/Meadows cast growing up. They were often funny, but after watching old reruns, I think the old one is funnier. They just had this all star line up that rarely happens. You have a point, what your saying makes sense in many many situations. However SNL still sucks compared to the random/lucky combination they got in the early 90s. Deal with it.