Remember that the one of the female leads is a born-again Christian

I think you missed the point. I don't care if Sorkin is actually an ordained minister - it's hitting us over the head with the same message over and over again that is boring and shows a lack of creativity.

Sure it will pander to the fringe group of Christian-haters who will love every single dig no matter how repetitive it becomes, but the majority will tune out.

Sure it will pander to the fringe group of Christian-haters.....

Christian-haters? I hadn't realized there was such a thing, nor that it was a "fringe group" to whom the show was attempting to pander. Learn something new every day. :rolleyes:

And once again, there will be other "messages" that Sorkin will attempt to bonk you over the head with, and they will be presented in a clever and witty fashion that might even make you think a little besides merely entertaining you. Be patient. ;)

Christian-haters? I hadn't realized there was such a thing, nor that it was a "fringe group" to whom the show was attempting to pander. Learn something new every day. :rolleyes:

And once again, there will be other "messages" that Sorkin will attempt to bonk you over the head with, and they will be presented in a clever and witty fashion that might even make you think a little. Be patient. ;)

The problem is, viewers have tuned in and are now tuning out. That's never a good sign. This show has lost all its momentum from great initial reviews. Now, to pull them back in, although possible, is going to be extremely difficult. These last couple of episodes have done nothing to help itself with its strident "hollywood" attitude.

Christian-haters? I hadn't realized there was such a thing, nor that it was a "fringe group" to whom the show was attempting to pander. Learn something new every day. :rolleyes: And once again, there will be other "messages" that Sorkin will attempt to bonk you over the head with, and they will be presented in a clever and witty fashion that might even make you think a little besides merely entertaining you. Be patient. ;)

Actually, the biggest dig in last night's show came at the expense of Democrats. I think Matt's line was something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here), "And I would gladly make fun of the Democrats if they had the spine to stand for and say something." I'm sure archi will correct my paraphrasing if it was incorrect.

If I had to guess, last night's show was probably the last to explore the anti-Christian lobe of Sorkin's brain for awhile. I think Harriet put it to bed with the Missouri thing. Sad to see the ratings are still tanking. If they're going to stick with it, they'd better move it soon before something else takes a foothold in a currently barren time slot.

While I know that the politically correct stance is that one person's opinion is as astute as another's, I don't really believe that - except in some wishywashy philosophical sense. It's like listening to a Charlie Parker solo and having someone tell you that he didn't like it and doesn't think it was any good. Since I know in my heart, as sure as I know my name, that Parker's playing is brilliant, that tells me that the other guy simply doesn't get it..
I agree.

I think you missed the point. I don't care if Sorkin is actually an ordained minister - it's hitting us over the head with the same message over and over again that is boring and shows a lack of creativity.Helllloooo CP, we've only seen THREE ep so far. Not feeling a little sensitive are we? :)



Sure it will pander to the fringe group of Christian-haters who will love every single dig no matter how repetitive it becomes, but the majority will tune out.I think they already have. Good riddance. They're all back to their brain dead CSI: Miami, The Bachelor: Rome or listening to their Radio Shows again ;).


ron

(By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle in his TV blog “The Bastard Machine”)

“…I watched "Studio 60" tonight. You know what? I love that show. The ratings are good, not great. I'll know more when the overnights come in for Ep. 3. But I can't shake the feeling that the series will eventually not matter to the heartland, and possibly beyond. That's the danger with an industry show. Every episode I watch, I think Aaron Sorkin has written it for me. I keep thinking, "Somebody in Dayton is going to think this is too self-important for its own good." I hope I'm wrong about that. But I'm probably not. Sorkin loves television. He has a keen eye for how it works from conception to cancellation. And it seems, in these first three episodes, that he's lining up and assassinating old nemeses, old issues, past grudges, flaws in the system, stereotypical but true executives - you name it. Then it hit me. Maybe he's ticking off all his targets in the first few episodes precisely because he wants to get them in before the show goes up in flames. Brilliant!

Yes. And more.

Long may the show live. And why shouldn't one man be allowed to take entertainment and the business of entertainment seriously? I mean, it's only the most powerful medium on the planet, the drug of the nation, why does he have to treat it like it's drastically less important than it really is? I've read the comments about how it seems "Studio 60" doesn't work as well as "West Wing" because the latter had gravitas and the former is merely about the TV industry. To which I say - if the government was run as ruthlessly as the TV business, if politics had the kind of instant accountability to the people that the TV industry has to viewers, we'd have a better ruling class. Sayeth Omar: No doubt.

Anyway, I love the series. I'll watch every episode until they kill it….”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=24

Actually, the biggest dig in last night's show came at the expense of Democrats. I think Matt's line was something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here), "And I would gladly make fun of the Democrats if they had the spine to stand for and say something." I'm sure archi will correct my paraphrasing if it was incorrect.

Haven't seen it yet (due to the late hour of the telecast, it gets shifted to Wednesday. But now that LOST is back and 'The Nine' is premiering, it will probably get shifted to even further back to Thursday), but I certainly agree with the sentiment. ;)

I’m drawn to the show, I really am, but it’s getting difficult.......three episodes...same theme....yawn. Strawman propped up......strawman knocked down. Sorkin is about as subtle as a Mack truck. :)

Helllloooo CP, we've only seen THREE ep so far. Not feeling a little sensitive are we? :)

Not sensitive at all. I like the show so far, but 3 episodes is plenty of time to expect some new ideas.

Boston Legal got preachy, but they seemed to pick a different "whipping boy" each week - even if it was on the same side of the ideological spectrum.

Christian-haters? I hadn't realized there was such a thing, nor that it was a "fringe group" to whom the show was attempting to pander. Learn something new every day. :rolleyes:

Clearly Sorkin feels it is a group big enough to pander to. Those smart enough "get the message", and can appreciate the wit. Hitting people over the head repeatedly with it for 3 episodes means that Sorkin either feels the audience are idiots, or he's pandering to those that are so rabid about the message that they'll forego entertainment in order to get the message out there over and over again.

As far as it being "fringe" - that was an assumption that those with that much hatred represent a smaller part of the population.

Clearly Sorkin feels it is a group big enough to pander to. Those smart enough "get the message", and can appreciate the wit. Hitting people over the head repeatedly with it for 3 episodes means that Sorkin either feels the audience are idiots, or he's pandering to those that are so rabid about the message that they'll forego entertainment in order to get the message out there over and over again.

I think Sorkin has bigger fish to fry than trying to pander to a segment of the population that "hate Christians", like finding another 5 million viewers for his show. Nobody hates Christians, including him I'm sure, but there are plenty who are concerned with the growing influence of the religious right on the political direction of the country, including him I'm sure. You know that old expression, "Love the Christian, hate the hypocrisy". ;)

As far as it being "fringe" - that was an assumption that those with that much hatred represent a smaller part of the population.

An extremely small part of the population, and that makes my point: too small to pander to, and it would be counterproductive to boot. Face it, he just feels strongly about the issue, he has a platform to express it, and he feels he can wring dramatic and comedic possibilities out of that conflict. Man's gotta' make a livin'...

He's dead-on right about this. I love the show as a whole, but Sorkin needs to either hire real comedians to write the comedy skits or stop showing them altogether. The musical in the first episode was pretty lame, but "Science Schmience" was just plain horribly unfunny, and the rest of the sketches in the montage were pretty awful as well. Material like that would certainly never signal a rebirth for their show.
This was a problem I had with the last show and it was worse with this one. To sell me the show-within-the-show as something good, they'll have to come up with a few minutes, just a few minutes, of moderately good material for it. Instead they've giving us a parody of SNL that could have been written by high school students.

Our hero producers are supposed to be saving this show by making it good again. Seeing the audience laughing and clapping at things that weren't funny, its ratings increasing and people calling their TV stations to carry the show made it seem like perhaps the message was that we TV viewers are idiots and we want controversy instead of actual entertainment. Maybe the next show we clear this up.

But this show's production values are incredible! Almost every scene looked excellent. I'll keep watching even if I have to stop listening and thinking.

I watched OTA HD in the Bay Area. Every few minutes the screen would black out. This happened a little on Heroes too but got really bad with Studio 60. Was this a local issue? After about 10:30 pm I got bad freezes and pixelation (the weather must have been too clear!!) and eventually had to watch in SD.

I had the same problem over cable. I kept at it, it pretty much blanked every other second at the end.

I think you missed the point. I don't care if Sorkin is actually an ordained minister - it's hitting us over the head with the same message over and over again that is boring and shows a lack of creativity.


I'm not a practicing christian but I am a fan of comedy and beating the same dead horse three weeks in a row isn't funny. There has to be more to writing and producing a variety show than bashing religion... right???

I just watched the first 3 eps consecutively off the DVR (she was bursting at the seams)...I really really enjoy this show. I can't say enough good things about Studio 60. Impressed by both Perry and Whitford. I'm sure it will get canned.

No mention about the crack on Amanda Peet's teeth? Great delivery there.

As far as the accusations of pandering to the christian haters...you know what they say, if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists. I mean, uh, christian haters. :rolleyes:

Seriously though. Are you guys not paying attention to what's going on in this country? Sorkin's got his finger right on the pulse of the debate raging in this country RIGHT NOW. He shows it being parodied every week because it isn't going away any time soon.

A show like SNL is topical. How can you make Studio 60 vanilla or apolitical? I think some of the people complaining just resent not being on the side with the loudest voice for a change. If this was about interns and the oval office, a whole different set of people would be whining about "oh quit beating us over the head 3 weeks in a row..." Right archiguy? :p

I guess nobody picks up on the fact that most of the material they were seen brainstorming supposedly comes from the newspaper, blogs, etc.
It's topical, it's relevant, therefore it's fair game. It's satire folks.

The real SNL does the same stuff every week too, for better or worse.
Why would a fake SNL show do differently?

Maybe this show really IS too smart for its own good.

The topic of "Studio 60" has been much discussed lately on the "Hot Off The Press" sticky.

Here is one of my posts on the show thus far:

Personally, Studio 60 was the show I most anticipated this fall. I really liked the pilot, was somewhat disappointed in episode two, and far more dismayed by number three.

I can't quite put my finger on what is bothering me, but it has something to do with the characters. They seem almost cartoon-like to me, not real at all.

Look, no matter what your political beliefs (and, not that it matters, but President Barlet would have had a hard time getting my vote, not that it matters) "West Wing" brought out fully nuanced characters.

What we have seen so far -- and I know it is only three episodes -- is a slimy, ass-covering, almost pathetic goof who runs the network, a group of not terribly interesting losers who put on the show, a holier-than-thou drug abuser (obviously Sorkin's alter-ego) and Matthew Perry who seems incapable of making any rational decision without the Bradley Whitford telling him what to do.

I want to love this show. I need a show I can't wait to see. A West Wing or an NYPD Blue or an American Dreams or a Sex In The City. Something that makes me laugh and think and enjoy watching. So far Studio 60 just doesn't seem like it will fill the bill for me.

Some sneer that the show is too “smart” for most viewers. But I don't think Middle America is too dumb to get it. I think it is just the reverse: viewers are too smart to be sucked in to a series which, so far at least, has given them plastic characters, unbelievable storylines and no one to root for.

In my mind Rich Heldenfelsof the Akron Beacon Journal had it right: a network chief exposed for an 8-year-old DUI big news? Not on this planet. Especially not when a top producer of a major show had just been hired after a drug bust.

And the head of the Fort Wayne station makes top network execs quake? Maybe back in the day. Today there is no way.

Maybe Sorkin needs a number of episodes to introduce us to all his characters. I'll keep watching, and hoping he finds them before we lose interest.

There is simply no comparison between these three hours and with the first few episodes of "West Wing". We quickly got to know Josh, Sam, Toby, Leo, C.J. and the entire staff. And (unless we found their politics so abhorrent we couldn't stand to watch) we generally liked them. We enjoyed their quirks and their failings and their humanness.

I just don't see any humanity in Studio 60 yet. Perry's trying to get back at people he thinks abandoned him years earlier. Whitford would rather be directing a movie. The network honcho would rather not have Amanda Peet foisted on him. So who are we supposed to care about -- and why?

Studio 60 is better than a whole lot of other programs, at least in my mind. But for me it still has been a major disappointment so far.

The real SNL does the same stuff every week too, for better or worse.
Why would a fake SNL show do differently?

Maybe this show really IS too smart for its own good.

The real SNL will keep playing the "Carol" sketch week after week despite it being stupid. The real SNL has sucked recently.

Is that the path Studio 60 is aiming for? If so, do you really consider that "smart"?

The real SNL will keep playing the "Carol" sketch week after week despite it being stupid. The real SNL has sucked recently.

Is that the path Studio 60 is aiming for? If so, do you really consider that "smart"?

I did say "for better or worse"... ;)
I was talking about the political sketches or digs at ignorance being a weekly staple of SNL.

Yes, Studio 60 is aiming to suck just like the real SNL. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. :rolleyes:

I finally got around to watching the 3rd episode... unless this show picks up by November sweeps, I'm taking this off my queue.

I have to reiterate that my main problem is that, with the exception of D.L. Hughley, none of the "cast members" have been believable as comedic actors. They're simply wooden and uninteresting. Actually, the majority of the remainder of the cast I could believe as comedic actors. Unfortunately they're playing the behind-the-scenes people. (They do a good job in their dramatic roles, though.)

I had the same problem over cable. I kept at it, it pretty much blanked every other second at the end.
Frustrating. Annoying, but I kept with it to see where they were going. Skipping, black, pixillation, artifacting, lower third going polkadot and green. Ugh... it was a real mess.

That said... I'll watch anything with Amanda Peet in it... :p

I usually think Sorkins writing style is above average. This seems a bit tired and obvious. That doesn't mean I'll stop watching it. I'll give it a bit more time now that I've decided never to watch Smith again. :rolleyes:

shane

Seriously though. Are you guys not paying attention to what's going on in this country? Sorkin's got his finger right on the pulse of the debate raging in this country RIGHT NOW. He shows it being parodied every week because it isn't going away any time soon...Maybe this show really IS too smart for its own good.

Now remember, I love the show, but the only pulse Sorkin has his finger on is his own. Forgotten in all his Christian Right bashing is Sorkin's assertion that cocaine abuse, hey, that's all right because it's only hurting one person, while DUI is a much greater offense. That scene where Danny is lecturing Jordan about the differences made me cringe. Would he like to see examples about how cocaine - and any drug addiction for that matter - has ruined many more lives than just the person(s) abusing the drug? What a bunch of self-righteous drivel that was.

But moving away from his agenda, the last five minutes showed how brilliant a writer he actually is. That scene when everybody is celebrating, yet Matt realizes that there's only one direction they can go from here - culminating when he enters his car after leaving the cast party - gave me chills and kudos to Matthew Perry for displaying his acting chops. That's the writing that will have me tuning in every week as long as it remains on the schedule.

Generally, NBC HD looks great. But Studio 60 and Heroes look drab, washed out, soft and muted. Anyone else notice this?

a holier-than-thou drug abuser (obviously Sorkin's alter-ego) and Matthew Perry who seems incapable of making any rational decision without the Bradley Whitford telling him what to do.

Fred, you fell for the fake. Matt (Perry), the writer, is actually Sorkin's alter ego. Danny (Whitford) is based on Tommy Schlamme, Sorkin's producer/director. The fake/twist was giving Danny the drug issues (although remember Matt was doing a lot of Vicodin in the premiere).

Now remember, I love the show, but the only pulse Sorkin has his finger on is his own. Forgotten in all his Christian Right bashing is Sorkin's assertion that cocaine abuse, hey, that's all right because it's only hurting one person, while DUI is a much greater offense. That scene where Danny is lecturing Jordan about the differences made me cringe. Would he like to see examples about how cocaine - and any drug addiction for that matter - has ruined many more lives than just the person(s) abusing the drug? What a bunch of self-righteous drivel that was.


Mr. Sorkin is entitled to his opinion too. And since he's the one with the TV show, you get to hear it unless you want to change the channel.

I'm with Sorkin on this one. There's a ridiculous double standard when it comes to drugs vs. booze. And in the context of the show, Danny going on a bender over a weekend and apparently not leaving the house vs. Jordan driving drunk, it's not even close. That was what I took from it. Not comparing drug addiction vs. alcohol addiction, but comparing one moment in time in each of their lives. Danny wasn't in denial about the seriousness of his problem. Jordan treated the DUI like a big joke. She got lectured. Maybe the lecture is foreshadowing future events, who knows.

I am starting to think people would enjoy this show more if Sorkin's name wasn't all over it.
There's a lot of baggage there that it seems like people just can't let go of.

As far as Studio 60 goes, I hope they move past the Christian bashing. We get it, they are the enemy of comedy and creative expression. Point made, time to move on.

Hollywood can stop attacking the Religious Right just as soon as the Religious Right stops attacking Hollywood. Quid pro quo. Until then, the subject is fair game.

It is certainly fair game, but I wouldn't watch a drama created by the religious right either. If I want to hear a bunch of pointless bickering back and forth with the same talking points from both sides repeated ad nauseum - I'll tune into one of the "news" channels.

I don't care if there's an agenda, just spread it out - or at least be more subtle. We're smart enough to know how the characters feel without them having to restate their case every time they address the camera. Don't write the show as if you're assuming the viewer hasn't watched any previous episodes.

I am starting to think people would enjoy this show more if Sorkin's name wasn't all over it.
There's a lot of baggage there that it seems like people just can't let go of.

Did you happen to read the first line in my post about how much I love the show? There hasn't been anything written, directed or produced by Sorkin that I haven't enjoyed. So that theory gets blown to hell pretty quick then doesn't it? And one other thing, it's tough to have a double standard when one vice is legal and the other, not so much.

Personally, Studio 60 was the show I most anticipated this fall. I really liked the pilot, was somewhat disappointed in episode two, and far more dismayed by number three.

I can't quite put my finger on what is bothering me, but it has something to do with the characters. They seem almost cartoon-like to me, not real at all.

I want to love this show. I need a show I can't wait to see.

There is simply no comparison between these three hours and with the first few episodes of "West Wing". We quickly got to know Josh, Sam, Toby, Leo, C.J. and the entire staff. And (unless we found their politics so abhorrent we couldn't stand to watch) we generally liked them. We enjoyed their quirks and their failings and their humanness.

I just don't see any humanity in Studio 60 yet. Perry's trying to get back at people he thinks abandoned him years earlier. Whitford would rather be directing a movie. The network honcho would rather not have Amanda Peet foisted on him. So who are we supposed to care about -- and why?

Studio 60 is better than a whole lot of other programs, at least in my mind. But for me it still has been a major disappointment so far.


I edited your post for the purpose of brevity -- although I pretty much agreed with everything you said. I loved the first episode, liked the second and found the third episode REALLY lacking. To me the characters are less interesting now than they were at the beginning. The "Big Three" seem to have no personality or depth, the Matthew Perry character has lost all its personality, and the Bradley Whitford character doesn't seem to have an important role for the show within the show "Studio 60".

I will continue to watch, but if someone who wanted to like the show as much as I did (West Wing was my favorite show and left a serious void in my weekly viewing) is starting to have doubts, I am sure others will turn it off in droves.

Hopefully Week 3 will be one of the worst episodes of the series, otherwise I think it has little hope. PLEASE, PLEASE develop these characters into people quickly.

Now that I have bashed about the third episode, here is what I did like about this one:

The bear goes ROAR joke -- the repitition worked for me on this one

The rallying of the actress who had the bad focus group data -- liked the speech Matthew Perry gave her and the scene where he hands her the T-Shirt

The scene with Amanda Peet waiting by the fax machine

However, what I liked about these scenes is the characters seemed real -- need much more of this.

Fred, you fell for the fake. Matt (Perry), the writer, is actually Sorkin's alter ego. Danny (Whitford) is based on Tommy Schlamme, Sorkin's producer/director. The fake/twist was giving Danny the drug issues (although remember Matt was doing a lot of Vicodin in the premiere).


You are right wiggo. I did make a careless error.

Here's a look at "Studio 60" from Time Magazine's TV critic:

Aaron Sorkin: The Shyamalan of TV
By James Poniewozik Time Magazine television critic in Time’s “Tuned In” blog

As a professional snobby, elitist critic, I am not in the habit of saying that the masses are right. But I make an exception when they agree with me, and they seem to have come around to my side on the massively overrated Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, the new self-aggrandizement vehicle from The West Wing's masterwriter, Aaron Sorkin.

Let's run the numbers (from Nielsen Media Research, by way of Marc Berman's Programming Insider column at Mediaweek): The show's first week drew 13.41 million viewers; week 2, 10.83 million; last night, 9.05 million. And every single week, a large chunk of the audience tuned away from the show in its second half hour.

Ironically, last night's episode focused on the second episode of Studio 60--the fictional late-night comedy within the show, in the process of being saved by Matt Albie (Matthew Perry) and Danny Tripp (Bradley Whitford)--and the percentage of viewers it would have to keep from its previous week. If it didn't "retain," in the TV biz term, 90 percent, heads were going to roll. On the show--thanks, we see, to the superhuman efforts of Sorkin stand-in Albie--the sketch comedy gets a boffo rating, 109 percent of its premiere under the new head duo. In real life... ahem. By my calculator, week 2 retained just over 80 percent of the week 1 audience; week 3 kept just under 84 percent of that reduced number.

Now, I'm not saying heads are going to roll in Sorkinville. NBC has a substantial commitment to the show and would waste millions of dollars by bailing on it early. And Studio 60 has good demographics; if its audience proves to be a rich as The West Wing's, the extra ad dollars they will draw could keep the show on much longer, even indefinitely. In the end, I don't know or care; I'm a critic, and my job is to decide whether a show is good, not how many ducats it will earn for General Electric. But I suspect--or at least I hope--the two are related here: that audiences have tuned away from a show they had high hopes for (as I did) because they can sense its inherent bogusness.

We know from NBC executives that Sorkin wrote the first several scripts of Studio 60 well in advance (to head off the problems of late scripts that plagued The West Wing). It would be cruel to imagine that Sorkin wrote the "retention" storyline anticipating that Studio 60, the real-life show, would at this point be basking in the afterglow of growing ratings. And yet you have to imagine it, if only because the rest of the show is so transparently self-congratulatory.

Let's start with the premise: Albie is a brilliant, politically minded writer; he was fired as a Studio 60 writer by the network four years ago; now the network, in a bind, has come crawling back to him to save their bacon; which he does, by single-handedly writing the show at a punishing pace; but not without interference from focus-grouping, craven suits who are proven wrong by his genius writing and ratings triumph. Sorkin, in real life, is a brilliant, politically minded writer; he is a notorious workaholic who essentially wrote The West Wing single-handedly; he was forced off The West Wing after four years; now, NBC, in fourth place, has bet on his heavily promoted show to save it; and, well... do the math. Whatever "flaws" Studio 60 loads Albie up with (He works too hard! He can be snippy to his staff! He was kind of a bad boyfriend!), he's such a clear author surrogate he might as well be called Sorkie McAaronson.

On his blog The Bastard Machine, Tim Goodman, the outstanding TV critic for The San Francisco Chronicle, with whom I agree more often than is healthy, asked about Sorkin and Studio 60: "Why shouldn't one man be allowed to take entertainment and the business of entertainment seriously?" Well, he should. He just can't get away with taking Aaron Sorkin that seriously. From reading fans' and critics' blogs the past few weeks, I think even some of his West Wing stalwarts agree; I have never gotten such a powerful sense of viewers willing themselves to like a show despite the evidence of their eyes.

Studio 60's main ratings problem may be that it's a TV show about a TV show, often too inside-baseball a topic for mass audiences. But the show also gets much of the baseball wrong. Sorkin portrays TV, outdatedly, as a vast wasteland, despite the evidence of Lost, Battlestar Galactica, House, The Office, and most FX and HBO series, just for starters. (A weird criticism, anyway, coming from a man who's had three high-profile network TV shows inside a decade.) And he has a tin ear for the kinds of TV scandals the public cares about: we've been asked to believe that political talk radio would be abuzz for a week about the new producers of a sketch show and that people would care one lick about the eight-year-old DUI arrest of a network president. (Tina Fey's superior inside-sketch-comedy sitcom, 30 Rock--of which I've just seen a second episode--understands that viewers follow the scandals of TV stars, not showrunners and suits.)

And then there's the funny: Sorkin is not a late-night comedy writer, nor should he have to be, but if he's going to put the show's sketches front-and-center--and, more important, if his show depends on you believing his heroes are talented--then he kind of has to, um, make you laugh. The glimpses of the show-within-a-show we saw last night (a "Pimp My Trike" sketch, a golf sketch, a, um, bear joke) were nearly as bad as episode 2's climactic Pirates of Penzance musical number, which failed both as comedy and as narrative. (I defy anyone to tell me what an "intellectual reach-around" means, other than that Sorkin needed a line that both rhymed and showed that Matt Albie was brainy and edgy, whether the lyric made sense or not.)

Maybe the best comparison for Studio 60 is not to any TV show but to M. Night Shyamalan's The Lady in the Water, from last summer. A prodigiously workaholic writer, Shyamalan reached the level where he could, like Sorkin, get more or less complete creative control of his work, and Lady showed where complete creative control can sometimes get you. Lady was a hokey farrago of a fantasy, involving a water nymph out to save mankind, but its crowning achievement was a storyline in which Shyamalan himself played a writer who was destined to pen a book so wise that it would change the course of history. Lady stunk of arrogance and self-congratulation, and audiences picked up on the scent.

TV series have one big advantage over movies: they can get better, and Studio 60 could. I wouldn't waste this kind of attention on a flat-out bad show, and there is just enough that's very, very right with Studio 60 to make the rest of it maddening. When they're doing anything but writing comedy, Sorkin's characters are hilarious--last night, Tripp got off a zinger, telling a staff writer that it's not exactly brave to write Bush jokes when the president's approval ratings are "down to seven guys in Tupelo." Sorkin is still masterly at laying plot bombs and detonating them at the right moment, as when Albie discovered that his partner was responsible for a focus-group question that asked if Albie's first show was "patriotic" enough; Tripp reveals that he did it to make Albie prove that he would write the show like he wanted even in the face of network polling and pressure. Sorkin is still an artist; if only he would use his palette for something other than airbrushing his self-portrait.

And one more thing, to be absolutely fair. Even though Sorkin ended episode 3 with a musical montage of Albie and his crew, flushed with their ratings success, Albie turns to Tripp and tells him that they shouldn't get too comfortable: as writers, he says, they should know that a story like this has only one place to go, and that's down.

Hand it to Sorkin: he got one detail right.

http://time.blogs.com/tuned_in/

You are right wiggo. I did make a careless error.

Yes, but you nailed the big picture. And the ratings look like a lot of people agree. If the slide continues, we won't get to see where things go.

Like you, I'm still hoping for it to blossom, but it may get nipped in the bud by declining viewership.

(Of course, I like the insider stuff. In my youth 30ish years ago I was doing theater with Meryl Streep, Gordon Clapp, and David Straithairn, and have lived vicariously through their careers ever since.)

Did you happen to read the first line in my post about how much I love the show? There hasn't been anything written, directed or produced by Sorkin that I haven't enjoyed. So that theory gets blown to hell pretty quick then doesn't it? And one other thing, it's tough to have a double standard when one vice is legal and the other, not so much.

Well, allow me to apologize for quoting you but then making a general comment about some of the criticism I see. My point was that because of Sorkin's notoriety, we are much more familiar with things he may be plucking from his own life. For example, maybe you wouldn't call Danny's lecture "self righteous drivel" if you didn't know about Sorkin's past. You'd have no point of reference if the show was penned by some unknown who was pulling from their own anonymous baggage.

The double standard of drugs vs. alcohol debate is way more off topic than we need to go. I was just giving my opinion on what was behind the lecture.

"To sell me the show-within-the-show as something good, they'll have to come up with a few minutes, just a few minutes, of moderately good material for it."

This is true, but I don't think that they are going to be able to do it. If the network could come up with just a few minutes of moderately good material, it would be used on Saturday Night Live.

"To sell me the show-within-the-show as something good, they'll have to come up with a few minutes, just a few minutes, of moderately good material for it."

This is true, but I don't think that they are going to be able to do it. If the network could come up with just a few minutes of moderately good material, it would be used on Saturday Night Live.

Maybe they could just hire a writer from The Daily Show on contract just to come up with a few funny sketches they could use whenever they need one. :p

I've often wondered why, in the whole vast city of New York, SNL can't find a handful of talented comedy writers to work on their show. It's amazing, really.

The Daily Show has (or should) become the template for all satirical comedy shows.

Not sure I agree with the critics that S60 needs to "show us the funny". The more in-depth the show is in the inner workings (forgive the 3 "in"s in the same sentence {now 5 ;) }), the less important it is for them to show any actual broadcast content. Telling us that a sketch "killed" or "bombed" (when it is necessary to the story) should be enough. But they can't show us something stupid and then tell us that it was hilarious. There's no way they could have created an actual "Crazy Christians" sketch that could have supported the hype created by the storyline. But I don't think anything was lost in not trying - we know it was hilarious but stepped on toes.

There's no way they could have reated an actual "Crazy Christians" sketch that could have supported the hype created by the storyline. But I don't think anything was lost in not trying - we know it was hilarious but stepped on toes.I don't know. After having seen some of the others maybe we're not so sure now :D.

On a larger note, perhaps some of this same reasoning could be applied to S60 as a whole. Massive hype > huge expectations > almost impossible task to fulfill. Is it possible that some are a bit disappointed because it was built up so much in their minds before it started? If people had never heard of S60 and simply "caught it" while channel surfing would they be so critical? Maybe it's like they said at the end of the show last night, "There's only one way to go from here", but in this case "here" was the pre-premiere promise? I still have to compare it to the other shows on the air, and so far to me it stacks up better than the vast majority. It's enough to keep me from hitting the hay at 10:00 on Monday nights and it's been a while since that's been the case. And who knows, it could turn out to be one of those shows that gets better as it works the kinks out and the cast/crew settles into a groove. Maybe they come to realize that the in-show bits are not such a good idea afterall... Maybe Sorkin gets all the peeves out of his system and moves on... OK, that one's probably not happening but ;)



ron

"To sell me the show-within-the-show as something good, they'll have to come up with a few minutes, just a few minutes, of moderately good material for it."

This is true, but I don't think that they are going to be able to do it. If the network could come up with just a few minutes of moderately good material, it would be used on Saturday Night Live.
They don't have to do a whole SNL show of material. They don't even have to do an entire sketch. Even a fragment of a sketch that's funny, even just a couple of good jokes in it, would make me believe that the show-within-the-show is really the beloved flagship of NBS that our two heros have come to rescue, not something the network dumped on Friday night. Like archiguy says, they could literally purchase this small amount of material from good comedy writers. This Sorkin guy either thinks he can write good comedy or that the quality of comedy in his show isn't important to get his message across.

Hollywood can stop attacking the Religious Right just as soon as the Religious Right stops attacking Hollywood. Quid pro quo. Until then, the subject is fair game.

Now there's some deep thinking and curious use of analogy.

The Daily Show has (or should) become the template for all satirical comedy shows.

Not sure I agree with the critics that S60 needs to "show us the funny". The more in-depth the show is in the inner workings (forgive the 3 "in"s in the same sentence {now 5 ;) }), the less important it is for them to show any actual broadcast content. Telling us that a sketch "killed" or "bombed" (when it is necessary to the story) should be enough. But they can't show us something stupid and then tell us that it was hilarious. There's no way they could have created an actual "Crazy Christians" sketch that could have supported the hype created by the storyline. But I don't think anything was lost in not trying - we know it was hilarious but stepped on toes.

I believe they were actually making this point with Harriet's bear joke, that nobody thought was funny, and then commenting "you know she'll make it work".

I don't know. After having seen some of the others maybe we're not so sure now.

I think that is the entire point. That sketches that we did see werent that funny and created the reality that their production show ISNT funny and therefore doesnt support the immediate success they are purported to have acheived. If we DONT see the sketch it better supports the storyline that the saviors have come and returned the show to glory. Our imagination is much more powerful, and more importantly, BELIEVABLE, than the reality.

MNBugeater

Wow, are you guys actually complaining about the skits?

One thing I noticed from Eps 3 is that NBS must be a cheap network not to have backup power at a live studio facility.

Wow, are you guys actually complaining about the skits?
Yeah, why can't they be as funny as the show wants us to think they are? The show revolves around the quality of the show-within-the-show. If it sucks, then it's demanding that we pretend it's actually good which is asking a lot from viewers. It's not like NBC isn't spending enough money on this to buy a small amount of funny material for each episode.

I honestly don't care if the skits are good or bad, shown or not shown. Most TV requires the suspension of belief -- I can suspend belief enough to think they are doing a great job on the show within the show.

Having seen a few episodes now, I have decided I liked this show better the first time I saw it, back when it was in black and white and called 'The Dick Van Dyke Show".

If you are going to do a highly autobiographical show about behind the scenes writing for television, it's pretty tough to improve on Carl Reiner.

Dude...I'm 30. Dick Van WHO??? Is that like, Chandler's dad or something? ;)

I don't need the skits to be funny. I was actually hoping we never really got to see any of the skits in the first place. I can't remember how Sorkin did it on Sports Night...did he actually show them doing the broadcast? I doubt I complained about the authenticity if so.

I actually didn't think "Science Schmience" was that bad anyway. It could've worked.

Dude...I'm 30. Dick Van WHO??? Is that like, Chandler's dad or something? ;)
I think that dude was the father in Eight is Enough. ;)

Having seen a few episodes now, I have decided I liked this show better the first time I saw it, back when it was in black and white and called 'The Dick Van Dyke Show".

If you are going to do a highly autobiographical show about behind the scenes writing for television, it's pretty tough to improve on Carl Reiner.

Wow. I never thought about it like that, but that's a great comparison. And an accurate conclusion. Good one.

I feel this show could have been written in a way to be more successful. While interesting, it really isn't good enough for the expectations. I like the show, but I feel the tv terminology and inside feel is not half as good as Sports Night. I feel the time slot is bad, but it doesn't matter -- as is seen with Thursdays, if people like and want to see a show, they will come to it.

Look if CBS can cancel a show with over 9 million viewers this week... CBS is notorious for cancelling what is otherwise decent rating shows (Guardian was one of the high profile examples going back a few years). I think that strategy has helped keep CBS ticking strong despite the brutalness of such a method, but I think many producers might not want their new show on CBS considering this factor.

In any case, I expect this show will be cancelled as I think further erosion of audience is still possible. Anyone here read into the articles about the pressure GE is putting on the NBC unit? Forget the investment they made into the show, maybe they will try a relaunch first, but the stories need to become more interesting and the pace needs to pick up a bit I think.

I guess we shall see. Since NBC already cancelled one show for the week, we may need to wait a bit for them to drop this hammer...I can't see them being anywhere near patient like Fox was with Arrested Development. I guess NBC gave Office a chance, and it rebounded to better ratings after the first season, but the higher production dollars here make this show a 'white elephant'.

Rasheed

I love Studio 60 and will hate it if NBC cancel it before it has the time to attract a larger core audience. What were they smoking to put this on on a Monday though?
Bish

Where would you have put it?

I was thinking the same thing, where would you put it? It's a different sort of show that will probably have problems no matter where it goes, but having it follow Heroes doesn't make a lot of sense to me as they would seem to be two entirely different audiences.

A friend Tivo'ed the first three episodes of this for me and I finally got around to watching the pilot episode last night.
I'm going to watch episode 3 today but the recording of the 2nd episode messed up and now I would kill to be able to watch it.
All I can find on the show's website is a download for the latest episode which is now the third episode.
Does anyone know of a source for the 2nd episode?

Does anyone know of a source for the 2nd episode?Check your PM.

Be advised that in addition to hoped for good ratings, NBC has this program on to hype interest in Saturday Night Live and future Saturday Night Live performers. A valued side benefit is the display of the way cool Hollywood showbiz scene.

this show suprised me. its really quite good

although the comedy sketches contained in the show could be funnier

Now I HAVE SEEN EVERYTHING! Love that ending line!!

OK. As I write this it's now 9:59 PM Central.
Listen up. If any of you naysayers are intending to post to this thread and say anything except that plagiarism bit was one of the most creative and entertaining things which has ever
been seen on television, then don't. You'll just be embarrassing yourselves.
I don't care what any TV critic thinks. I don't care what the ratings were, are or will be. I don't care how many out there watch this show.
All I care about is that I got to watch this show.

Great show tonight. Matthew Perry is a much better actor than I gave him credit for. The stuff about the plagiarism was some really good writing.

One thing I noticed from Eps 3 is that NBS must be a cheap network not to have backup power at a live studio facility.

And that surprises you, considering the lack of a HD graphics generator for the July 4th Fireworks broadcast last year or the lack of a backup for the Ku distribution system when it rains in NYC on the real NBS?

Good show, except...

I never thought I'd say this, but: too much walking and talking.

Definitely the best episode so far IMO, enjoyed this one more than the others combined.

And that surprises you, considering the lack of a HD graphics generator for the July 4th Fireworks broadcast last year or the lack of a backup for the Ku distribution system when it rains in NYC on the real NBS?
The folks at NBC O&O KNTV San Francisco care so little about their digital signal that they apparently don't want to spend $10-15 an hour for 3 hrs a night to actually have someone watch and listen to their signal and say "hey, something's wrong fellas", both Heroes and Studio 60 audio all screwed up tonight. Pathetic.

The folks at NBC O&O KNTV San Francisco care so little about their digital signal that they apparently don't want to spend $10-15 an hour for 3 hrs a night to actually have someone watch and listen to their signal and say "hey, something's wrong fellas", both Heroes and Studio 60 audio all screwed up tonight. Pathetic.

Need I say more:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=734373

And you want to know where the backup generator is, lol.

The folks at NBC O&O KNTV San Francisco care so little about their digital signal that they apparently don't want to spend $10-15 an hour for 3 hrs a night to actually have someone watch and listen to their signal and say "hey, something's wrong fellas", both Heroes and Studio 60 audio all screwed up tonight. Pathetic.

I do not know if, or how it might be related, but my HD Tivo quit during recording the botched show and came up with a high temperature warning and shut down notice. I had to unplug and restart to recover. Then I found it will not play the botched recording. Anyone else have a problem with Tivo failure beside me?

thanks.
KT

Good show, except...

I never thought I'd say this, but: too much walking and talking.

Roger that !! It was definitely a memorable episode last night. But it seems that Mr. Sorkin doesn't appreciate the value of a pause in between quickfire reparte. I get turned off by the lack of "pauses for dramatic effect". That was my only complaint last night, and so far this season.

i'm a little shocked to see all the praise for last night's episode - i just finished it and i think all of the episodes since the pilot have been on a downward spiral....

i'm a little shocked to see all the praise for last night's episode - i just finished it and i think all of the episodes since the pilot have been on a downward spiral....

Don't forget to tune in next week so that you can be even more disappointed, and don't forget to come in here and tell us how the show continues to "spiral downward". :rolleyes:

i'm a little shocked to see all the praise for last night's episode - i just finished it and i think all of the episodes since the pilot have been on a downward spiral....

For me, yesterday's episode was better than the pilot. Go figure !!

That's why they say "Your Mileage May Vary".

Don't forget to tune in next week so that you can be even more disappointed, and don't forget to come in here and tell us how the show continues to "spiral downward". :rolleyes:

hey man i am not trying to start a flamewar over this. guess i should have expanded a bit if i was chiming in with criticism....

to me, the situations in the show that are supposed to be "dramatic" are becoming less compelling and the parts that are supposed to be "funny" are even less funny than they have been in past weeks...

yes i will tune in next week because there is enough i like about Studio 60 that i hope it's gonna get better, but this has 1-season-then-cancelled-then-dvd-cult-fave written all over it. i would be absoluelty shocked if we have a Studio 60 thread in these forums one year from now unless it's to talk about the season 1 hd-dvds.

oleus

Best episode yet.

Best episode yet.

wow maybe i need to watch this one again.

what aspects of last night's show were you guys so impressed by?

what aspects of last night's show were you guys so impressed by?

I'm going to go with the entertainment aspects.

I'm going to go with the entertainment aspects.
I think you nailed it. I can't say why or what part of this show is so great but I am very entertained by it and I enjoy watching it. I think it might stick around for a while just for that reason.

Definitely the best episode so far IMO, enjoyed this one more than the others combined.
For me, yesterday's episode was better than the pilot. Go figure !!

I dunno, guys.

_____________________________
_____________________________

WES has gotten out of his chair and stepped on stage.

TOM (AS BUSH)
(still sticking with the cue cards)
I've been asked by Vice President, Dick Cheney, to join me this--

WES
We're gonna stop it, fellas.

TOM
Did we lose the feed?

WES
No. I want you both to clear the stage, I don't want anyone to think you were a part of this.

The AUDIENCE is laughing a little bit, assuming this is part of the show.

WES
(again)
Clear the stage.

TOM and the cast member playing Cheney step to the side, but not too far away as they're a little concerned.

WES (CONT'D)
(to the audience)
This isn't gonna be a very good show tonight and I think you should change the channel.

You should change the channel right now, or better yet turn off the TV.
This show used to be cutting edge political and social satire, but it's gotten lobotomized by a candy-ass broadcast network hell-bent on doing nothing that might challenge their audience.
We were about to do a sketch you've already seen 500 times. Yes, no one's gonna confuse George Bush with George Plimpton, we get it. We're all being lobotomized by the country's most influential industry which has thrown in the towel on any endeavor that does not include the courting of 12-year-old boys.
And not even the smart 12-year-olds, the stupid ones, the idiots, of which there are plenty thanks in no small part to this network. So change the channel, turn off the TV. Do it right now.

...and there's always been a struggle between art and commerce, but now I'm telling you art is getting it's ass kicked, and it's making us mean, and it's making us bitchy, and it's making us cheap punks and that's not who we are.
...We're eating works for money, "Who Wants to Screw My Sister", guys are getting killed in a war that's got theme music and a logo. That remote in your hand is a crack pipe...
It's pornorgraphy. And it's not even good pornography. They're just this side of snuff films, and friends, that's what's next 'cause that's all that's left.
And the two things that make them scared gutless are the FCC and every psycho-religious cult that gets positively horny at the very mention of a boycott.
These are the people they're afraid of, this prissy, feckless, off-the-charts greed-filled whorehouse of a network you're watching. This thoroughly unpatriotic--

CAL: Go VTR! Go VTR! Roll titles! Now!

And we smash cut to main titles
____________________________________

As I said, guys, I dunno. Do you really think we need to pit episode 1 against episode 4 here. And not just savor em both.

p.s. and it should be emphasized that there was never any intent to plagiarize Chayefsky in episode 1. Sorkin merely decided to pay homage to him in the pilot episode. He was duly credited in the script exactly as happened in the storyline in episode 4.

For me this one was the best one since the pilot since it had the least amount of mediocre sketch material. Even the show implied it was mediocre material since it had been rejected years ago (I guess when the show had better stuff to choose from) and plagarized by a crummy stand up comedian that no one had ever heard of.

The Matt/Harriet thing however is still looking more like something out of junior highschool than Hollywood. Isn't this supposed to be a smart show?

And that surprises you, considering the lack of a HD graphics generator for the July 4th Fireworks broadcast last year or the lack of a backup for the Ku distribution system when it rains in NYC on the real NBS?LOL I guess NBS does have some peacock feathers lying around.

(From Marc Berman’s Tuesday, October 10 , 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )

“…Unfortunately, the news remains bleak for NBC at 10 p.m. with week four of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip at a distant second-place 6.8/11 in the overnights, 8.76 million viewers and a 3.8/ 9 among adults 18-49. The once piece of good news for Studio 60: it beat ABC’s competing What About Brian….”

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp

second-place

OMG!!!!111 The show is screwed!!!!!1 "Bleak" doesn't even begin to describe it!!!!!!1111111111

'Studio 60' and the nature of funny
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher” October 10, 2006

Reviews of the sketches on “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” have been coming in since the show premiered Sept. 18, and many have been pretty negative. A fair number of bloggers, critics and message-board commenters have said they find the sketches on the Aaron Sorkin drama tepid, uninspired and not befitting a “hot” sketch-comedy program; the fictional “Studio 60” show-within-a-show, we’re told, is on a red-hot roll.

I’d begun mapping out a defense of Sorkin’s sketches over the past few weeks. The sketches were really just there as engines for the characters on the show, to get them to talk about different subjects – religion, politics, whatever. And if they weren’t knee-slappingly funny, they were, at least, reasonably believable as sketches. And besides, weren’t we often seeing sketches that weren’t quite finished yet?

Another line of defense: “Studio 60” isn’t exactly a documentary. Nobody believes that Dr. Greg House on “House” would really get away with treating patients so rudely (nor would he skate by the fact that he nearly, or actually, kills someone every week). But the rest of the drama is so good and so meaty that we don’t really question the realness of what we’re seeing on shows like “House” and “Studio 60.”

Finally, are the sketches any lamer than the ones on “Saturday Night Live,” the model for “Studio 60”? I think not.

Well, I should say, I thought not. Monday’s episode changed all that.

Now I must concede that the anti-sketch crowd was right.

The subject of Monday’s episode was an “editorial” presented during “Studio 60’s” news segment. It came from the writers’ room, which was a big deal, since new top producer Matt Albie had single-handedly written the previous two episodes of “Studio 60.” His offer to let “the room” write one 90-second bit was a peace offering of sorts to head writers Ricky and Ron, with whom he’d been feuding for years.

The only trouble was, the piece that “the room” came up with was glaringly unfunny. If this had been the material of a C-grade comic at Toledo’s Laff Shak – yeah, that I would believe. That Ricky and Ron, and then Matt, thought the editorial, which was offered by a junior writer in “the room,” was extraordinarily funny was jarring, to say the least.

The piece was incredibly tired material about how kids with ADD or other behavior disorders would have, in the past, just been called “stupid.” And the U.S. has so much food that it can drop both food and bombs on people, etc. Imagine a Lewis Black rant on “The Daily Show,” but with all the actual comedy removed, and you get the idea.

The characters on “Studio 60” who thought that piece was funny became instantly less believable as arbiters of comedy. Most of the skits haven’t really affected my view of the characters one way or the other – I was willing to suspend disbelief and go along with the idea that Matt was a comedy genius. I certainly have more trouble believing that now.

Aaron Sorkin needs to hire better writers to write the sketch material on his show. And he needs to have people around him who will tell him the honest truth when the sketches are just plain awful. Or “Studio 60,” a show I’m still committed to and still like for a lot of good, solid reasons, is going to implode.

There were other troubling signs that the writing on the show is already getting lazy: During the crisis over that “editorial,” which was found to be plagiarized, network executive Jordan McDeere once again was allowed to wave off her angry boss, Jack Rudolph, with a quip. It looked as though she literally hung up on him in the show’s control room. That’s not funny, that’s career suicide.

And would Danny Tripp, Matt Albie’s creative partner, stand around with Harriet Hayes, Matt’s ex-girlfriend, and discuss the former couple’s romantic troubles three feet away from a visiting Vanity Fair journalist? (That journalist will, I’m guessing, turn out to be a horrible, soulless betrayer of good, well-intentioned people, which is par for the course for TV’s portrayal of journalists.)

Fumbles like these are forgivable – for now. There are still high points in every “Studio 60” episode – Monday’s was Harriet’s absolutely uncanny imitation of Juliette Lewis (now I see why Sarah Paulson makes some sense in the part of Harriet; Paulson a genius mimic). And that Juliette Lewis sketch was kind of funny – I wish we’d seen more of it.

But let’s face it, Aaron Sorkin is not a funny man. And let’s hope he realizes that sooner rather than later.

http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/

OMG!!!!111 The show is screwed!!!!!1 "Bleak" doesn't even begin to describe it!!!!!!1111111111Don't get too upset about it. This kind of quality would be difficult to maintain for very long even for the most creative writer.
Look at it like this. When a really good feature comes along once in a while we're usually satisfied with that. We don't even expect the sequels to do it justice (or we shouldn't anyway).
So if the vast wasteland of braindead aint watching it and because of that it soon goes by the wayside, look at the bright side. At least we got to see the original and several good sequels. So what if we didn't get to see "Studio 60 12 - Matthew Perry Meets Jason and Freddy", or, "Studio 60 23 - Jethro Bodine Returns To Television".

The Matt/Harriet thing however is still looking more like something out of junior highschool than Hollywood. Isn't this supposed to be a smart show?Love makes people do crazy sh*t and act stupid no matter how old they are :D.

When I read the description of the ep in the program guide before the show I thought, "Wow, not so sure how compelling this might be...". Then in the beginning of the show they had the long Matt/Harriet argument piece and I was thinking, "Maybe S60 is just slowly losing steam...". But when they kicked into the plagiarism piece all the sudden the whole show seemed to bloom for me and I ended up liking the ep a lot.

I personally don't mind the sketch bits being thrown in, even if they are not particularly great in and of them selves. To me they are not the focal point but simply serve tie the show together and create the flow more than anything else. Yeah, if they were LOL funny it would be bonus for sure, but to me they don't need to be. I have to say though, I continue to be impressed by Sarah Paulson's impersonation skills. I thought her brief Juliette Lewis bits were really pretty good.

edit: Looks like I need to type faster. I guess the Chicago writer and I agree on one thing anyway...


ron

Did anyone else happen to notice the IMDb Trivia of the Day yesterday? The answer came back that the comedy sketches on Studio 60 are written by Mark McKinney of 'Kids in the Hall'.

Apparently McKinney was also a SNL cast member from 95 through 97.

Interesting pilot, but I am losing interest in this show rather quickly. Last few episodes have been, well, boring. I'm going to give it another week or two, but so far the show has been mostly hype.

i'm a little shocked to see all the praise for last night's episode - i just finished it and i think all of the episodes since the pilot have been on a downward spiral....

agreed

Well there's always this.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-10-08-tina-fey_x.htm

Not a good night for Studio 60. First no dialog (surround sounds only), then postage stamp pic, then back to no dialog again (this was OTA in the Bay Area). Had to watch in SD for the first half. Then the plot with Perry mooning over his former girlfriend is getting old very fast - how long can this go on. Boring! Then to top it off in my house, one of my kitties decides to have diarrhea on the rug in spare bedroom. YECHH. Spent rest of show cleaning it up.

Well there's always this.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-10-08-tina-fey_x.htm
Blech. I love Tina Fey, but Tracy Morgan just isn't funny...

Not a good night for Studio 60. First no dialog (surround sounds only), then postage stamp pic, then back to no dialog again (this was OTA in the Bay Area). Had to watch in SD for the first half. Then the plot with Perry mooning over his former girlfriend is getting old very fast - how long can this go on. Boring! Then to top it off in my house, one of my kitties decides to have diarrhea on the rug in spare bedroom. YECHH. Spent rest of show cleaning it up.Too much information....


ron

Looks like they bit off more than they could chew. To succeed, they would have to create two top notch and engaging shows. Unless the live show is knock your socks off, cutting edge comedy...Who cares about the behind the scenes stuff?

Sadly, beneath all the pretense and self importance is a mediocre product. IMO ;)

Bit of a let down, could have been great.

Looks like they bit off more than they could chew. To succeed, they would have to create two top notch and engaging shows. Unless the live show is knock your socks off, cutting edge comedy...Who cares about the behind the scenes stuff?

Sadly, beneath all the pretense and self importance is a mediocre product. IMO ;)

Bit of a let down, could have been great.

pretense and self importance sums it up perfectly.

i really really want this show to work but i almost wonder if it would be better without Sorkin involved.....

I like the show. It is better than watching all the CSI and ripoff shows that are running into each other.

Hey, the plagerism bit and how they handled it were actually quite hilarious. Sorkin is very funny and witty, just not as a sketch writer.

i really really want this show to work but i almost wonder if it would be better without Sorkin involved.....

There is no show if Sorkin is not involved. Look what happened to The West Wing when he left. The last 3 seasons felt like a pale imitation, and they were. Good writing, a great cast, and attractive viewer demographics kept that ship afloat 'till it finally ran aground, but it started taking on water the day he departed.

Then to top it off in my house, one of my kitties decides to have diarrhea on the rug in spare bedroom. YECHH. Spent rest of show cleaning it up.

Clearly, this is the fault of the show. Aaron Sorkin should be fired for causing cats to have diarrhea. :mad:

(From Marc Berman’s Tuesday, October 10 , 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )

“…Unfortunately, the news remains bleak for NBC at 10 p.m. with week four of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip at a distant second-place 6.8/11 in the overnights, 8.76 million viewers and a 3.8/ 9 among adults 18-49. The once piece of good news for Studio 60: it beat ABC’s competing What About Brian….”

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp

Isn't that a bump up in the ratings (18-49) from last week's episode?

Do you guys think the show would resonate more as a behind-the scenes show about SNL if the S60 show sucked? They brought the two heroes in and they turned things around in the pilot episode. I'd think it might have been a better strategy to throw them into the sh*t and let them suffer all the problems. Then let them get some wins by gradually improving the show - while overcoming all the hardships and outside forces.

I think more people like the Rocky, come from behind story, rather than a movie about Apollo Creed trying to stay at the top.

Apparently McKinney was also a SNL cast member from 95 through 97.

He was part of the complete makeover cast in 1995. That cast included Jeanine Garafalo, Chris Elliot and a lot of "famous" people. They basically started over in 1995 after the Sandler, Farley, Rock days were coming to an end. That cast worked out so well that almost all of them were gone by 1996. McKinney was one of the few who stayed around to join Darrell Hammond, Cheri Oteri, Molly Shannon and Will Farrell in the 1996-97 cast.

I only saw one sketch in which McKinney used any Kids in the Hall character and that was "Da-ryl". He was on the internet, naked, chatting with Jeanine Garafalo. It was one of those 12:47 sketches. McKinney also appears in a lot of the Bill Brasky bits. McKinney was the best actor among the Kids and is very talented.

To hear the Kids tell it they were blackballed from Hollywood after the Brain Candy movie for refusing to cut the "Cancer Boy" character. However it's always great to see them sneak back into the mainstream (though I refuse to watch Gilmore Girls just to see Brucio). I was going to cancel S60 fron my season pass and forget about it alltogether but now I will at least FF to the sketches.

McKinney is a shrewd person to hire. Not only can he write great sketch comedy but he worked with Lorne Michaels for 8 years. He knows the best and worst of Lorne and at its heart thats what S60 is all about. Shouldn't Lorne have come out and stopped one of those dreadful sketches and launched into a career killing diatribe at some point? Well Judd Hirsch finally did it for him.

There is no show if Sorkin is not involved. Look what happened to The West Wing when he left. The last 3 seasons felt like a pale imitation, and they were. Good writing, a great cast, and attractive viewer demographics kept that ship afloat 'till it finally ran aground, but it started taking on water the day he departed.


In all fairness, as a "thank you" gift to NBC, Sorkin also left the new writers in an untenable situation:

Zoey had been kidnapped by terrorists;

Bartlet had left office temporarily under terms of the 25th amendment, and

the Speaker of the House (John Goodman) a Republican had become interim President.

Good luck to anyone digging out of that hole.

In all fairness, as a "thank you" gift to NBC, Sorkin also left the new writers in an untenable situation:

Zoey had been kidnapped by terrorists;

Bartlet had left office temporarily under terms of the 25th amendment, and

the Speaker of the House (John Goodman) a Republican had become interim President.

Good luck to anyone digging out of that hole.
:p :D

Yup, that was more like a plotline for 24 rather than The West Wing.

The West Wing remained a great show until its final episode. I seriously seriously seriously doubt the claim of anyone pretending to be able to instantly spot the authoring hand of different writers.

Even were this possible, the question becomes how instantaneous would this recognition be? A single line inserted? 20 minutes of show perhaps? An episode? Season perhaps? Were we not attuned to news from the industry, I doubt that even the most savvy critics would have laid their reputations on the line by boldly declaring Sorkin was no longer writing for the show -- that they had recognized it, so now knew it, and were prepared to call the producers on it.

Of course what keeps this from being able to be put to a very adequate test is that anyone familiar enough with West Wing might easily recognize the story line from a Sorkin vs. non-Sorkin episode, but if I had the time and resources, I'm certain I could cull dialogue from each category and defy anyone to correctly identify the author in a statistically significant sampling.

So let us stop the pretense please.

And another thing: How many of even the most sophisticated critics, if they were not told of of Sorkin's involvement in Studio 60, would have put themselves out there to say they were sure he was this show's writer?

So let us stop the pretense please.

It's not just individual words (but I can see why you would think that ;) ), it's how he puts them together and the scenes he creates from those words, the acts he creates from those scenes, and the whole enchilada put together. The remaining writers tried to emulate his style, but it was like a good college student trying to emulate the style of a Pulitzer winner. Close, but no cigar..... and no Sorkin.

It's not just individual words (but I can see why you would think that ;) ), it's how he puts them together and the scenes he creates from those words, the acts he creates from those scenes, and the whole enchilada put together. The remaining writers tried to emulate his style, but it was like a good college student trying to emulate the style of a Pulitzer winner. Close, but no cigar..... and no Sorkin.

a good college student?....close?......you are too kind

The 5th season of The West Wing was gimmicky, sappy, overly-dark and overly dramatic. IMO, it went from being one of the best shows to ever air on television to a dressed up soap opera :( .

As far as Studio 60 is concerned, the jury is still out for me. So far I am entertained, but I don't know how much material can be there without resorting to too many interpersonal relationship plot lines. However, I am actually enjoying the current romance plot line. I think they have great chemistry....and yes I am a heterosexual male :D .

He was part of the complete makeover cast in 1995. That cast included Jeanine Garafalo, Chris Elliot and a lot of "famous" people. They basically started over in 1995 after the Sandler, Farley, Rock days were coming to an end. That cast worked out so well that almost all of them were gone by 1996. McKinney was one of the few who stayed around to join Darrell Hammond, Cheri Oteri, Molly Shannon and Will Farrell in the 1996-97 cast.

I only saw one sketch in which McKinney used any Kids in the Hall character and that was "Da-ryl". He was on the internet, naked, chatting with Jeanine Garafalo. It was one of those 12:47 sketches. McKinney also appears in a lot of the Bill Brasky bits. McKinney was the best actor among the Kids and is very talented.

To hear the Kids tell it they were blackballed from Hollywood after the Brain Candy movie for refusing to cut the "Cancer Boy" character. However it's always great to see them sneak back into the mainstream (though I refuse to watch Gilmore Girls just to see Brucio). I was going to cancel S60 fron my season pass and forget about it alltogether but now I will at least FF to the sketches.

McKinney is a shrewd person to hire. Not only can he write great sketch comedy but he worked with Lorne Michaels for 8 years. He knows the best and worst of Lorne and at its heart thats what S60 is all about. Shouldn't Lorne have come out and stopped one of those dreadful sketches and launched into a career killing diatribe at some point? Well Judd Hirsch finally did it for him.

Interesting, Posty.
It's gonna be fun to watch what Michaels and Tina Fey try to do with the other show tonight.
I've got my microwave popcorn and nachos and M&M's all ready for the whole shebang. Robin Williams on Hardball. Followed by this new thing. And then the piece of resistance, Eric Cartman and the 9-11 conspiracy theory.
The gods of TV entertainment are looking down on us tonight.

The 5th season of The West Wing was gimmicky, sappy, overly-dark and overly dramatic. IMO, it went from being one of the best shows to ever air on television to a dressed up soap opera.
As per fredfa, the Sorkin White House of President Bartlett featured these elements:


-Zoey had been kidnapped by terrorists;
-Bartlet had left office temporarily under terms of the 25th amendment, and
-the Speaker of the House (John Goodman) a Republican had become interim President.


Now to me, it sounds like you could call all that gimmicky, sappy, overly dark and overly dramatic. But I thought Sorkin was none of those things ever...?

So, if the scenes and scenarios he creates from his words, the acts he creates from those scenes, and the whole enchilada put together does not really in fact distinguish Sorkin, make him utterly unique and instantly identifiable, perhaps the key to identifying the Sorkin style is ALL in the words used, the dialogue, etc..... but wait! -- here comes along archiguy to tell you it is not in the individual words.

What is very apparent to me here is that folks are working backward (as they tend to do) and with perfect foreknowledge of Sorkin's departure from WW, feel very free to conjecture that they know the difference -- Sorkin good, all others pale imitators. This is a well known phenomenon -- people seeing a gorgeous hulking amp will tend to say that it sounds twenty times better than a small unattractive box, etc., even if the guts are identical.

Of course praise will inevitably follow someone who has been so universally lauded -- it is always far easier to hop on the success wagon after we are assured we won't look like asses who have no sense of taste or fine discernment. But also, I'm even quite sure that the certainty of Sorkin having written something transforms even the PERCEPTION of it, not just the lip service, to become much more favorable as well.

So we see all this is quite natural, and I don't believe a word of someone claiming to absolutely know his pen.


Here are just two curious things that come to mind:

1) The book PRIMARY COLORS which was purportedly about the fictionalized Clinton White House or campaign to attain it, written by "Anonymous," had all the best experts, pundits, media types, Washington insiders, and people who had been reading the true author's work for years, absolutely stumped. The author worked for Newsweek and was no doubt read by more than a few who failed to identify his writing. It actually took a specialist, an English authorship forensic specialist, if you will, who set about to analyzing syntax, recurring idioms, expressions, etc., with the aid of a high powered computer, to finally guess correctly the well-known actual author. I'm sure many chimed in at that time that they knew it all along as well.

2) Many many works attributed to Rembrandt and analyzed to death in every aspect, from every perspective; brushstrokes, paint composition, thematic subject matter, X-rays, canvas composition, etc., etc. -- analyzed in all those ways by experts before their inclusion in the permanent collections of museums at multi-million dollar price tags, were fairly recently deposed as non-genuine by a traveling group of uber-experts, who eventually started getting turned away from collections -- seems there were alot of curators who somehow no longer trusted the verifications of their experts who had claimed they could identify the master's hand and now of course did not want their investment trashed.

So please do pardon that I don't buy that folks out there instantly and unfailingly recognize the Sorkin pen -- just don't believe it, sorry. If experts FREQUENTLY don't have a clue...well, you get the idea.

Now of course whether you thought the last seasons of WW were less than the greatest, that might be a different matter altogether, but I'm sure Sorkin wrote stuff as well during his tenure that did not strike the right note for many or did not seem characteristic of his usual brilliance.

Just keep in mind that the way STUDIO 60 seems to be going, it won't be long before people start to recognize the Sorkin style as gimmicky, sappy, or anything else that he is presently not thought to be. Then it may well come to pass that people will say "That sure was crappy -- that is a Sorkin episode for sure -- can't fail to recognize that style."

What is very apparent to me here is that folks are working backward (as they tend to do) and with perfect foreknowledge of Sorkin's departure from WW, feel very free to conjecture that they know the difference -- Sorkin good, all others pale imitators. This is a well known phenomenon -- people seeing a gorgeous hulking amp will tend to say that it sounds twenty times better than a small unattractive box, etc., even if the guts are identical.

Of course praise will inevitably follow someone who has been so universally lauded -- it is always far easier to hop on the success wagon after we are assured we won't look like asses who have no sense of taste or fine discernment. But also, I'm even quite sure that the certainty of Sorkin having written something transforms even the PERCEPTION of it, not just the lip service, to become much more favorable as well.

So we see all this is quite natural, and I don't believe a word of someone claiming to absolutely know his pen.

These are some interesting points with some level of validity. However, this is far from my personal experience with The West Wing. I watched the first 4 seasons of The West Wing religiously. I stopped watching the show in the middle of the 5th season. I did not even pay attention to who created the show and really had no idea who Sorkin was at the time. I just knew the show sucked.

However, I will admit that one of the reasons I stopped watching was the absence of Rob Lowe.

That is certainly very interesting, jefe noche. I think one might naturally assume that those having even marginal familiarity with the show, would not have failed to note Sorkin's association with it, but I will myself cop to being a total TV addict, so perhaps my perspective is skewed.

There are two issues (at least) in play here. Whether a casual viewer, or even an industry insider can actually detect the specific stamp of a given artist's hand, and issue two, whether West Wing's last season and/or Studio 60 represent a significant decline in quality from the early WW seasons.

I've made my take on the artist recognition issue known above, but of course it is virtually impossible -- call it exceedingly unlikely, that anything, feature films included, rises to the standard set by The West Wing. Even in the non-Sorkin era, if you ask me, there was little to compete with it.

Look at it from this perspective: the collections that owned those supposedly fake Rembrandts went from having a painting said to be worth many many millions of dollars (can one even fathom a multiple-million dollar appreciation for a still image such as that?), to having a painting, the exact same painting as they had before, I note, that when "exposed" as fake, became virtually worthless. So now folks could not appreciate the same thing they were doting over before? Nevertheless those paintings were unceremoniously rotated out of exhibit into basements and back rooms as soon as the word came down.

This was not what we had with West Wing. The show did not plummet from perfection to zero value and it never ever looked anything at all like Commander In Chief (a zero value standard for purposes of this point).

Whether you thought it maintained a uniform stratospheric level of achievement throughout all its seasons is perhaps a matter of taste, but in my estimation, with the surpassing contributions of Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda doing their most seasoned and intelligent work to date, not to mention the very concious goal of rising to an almost impossible writing standard, you still had one of the best shows on TV, eminently watchable and engrossing during the entire run.

I have yet to find Studio 60 that compelling, but I will also admit to not being a very big Perry fan either.

I love Studio 60. Excellent, crisp writing. Compared to that miserable 30 Rock last night, yikes.

a good college student?....close?......you are too kind

The 5th season of The West Wing was gimmicky, sappy, overly-dark and overly dramatic. IMO, it went from being one of the best shows to ever air on television to a dressed up soap opera :( .

The 5th season was after Sorkin left. So, blame John Wells for that please :)

Cheers,

The West Wing remained a great show until its final episode. I seriously seriously seriously doubt the claim of anyone pretending to be able to instantly spot the authoring hand of different writers.

Even were this possible, the question becomes how instantaneous would this recognition be? A single line inserted? 20 minutes of show perhaps? An episode? Season perhaps? Were we not attuned to news from the industry, I doubt that even the most savvy critics would have laid their reputations on the line by boldly declaring Sorkin was no longer writing for the show -- that they had recognized it, so now knew it, and were prepared to call the producers on it.

Of course what keeps this from being able to be put to a very adequate test is that anyone familiar enough with West Wing might easily recognize the story line from a Sorkin vs. non-Sorkin episode, but if I had the time and resources, I'm certain I could cull dialogue from each category and defy anyone to correctly identify the author in a statistically significant sampling.

So let us stop the pretense please.

It's not the individual segments of dialogue, it's the whole package.

Not to mention that there are subtleties and nuances in character interactions seemed to have disappeared once Sorkin departed.

Take an episode from season 3, Bartlet For America Now show me an episode from season 5 that does as well as this one and we'll talk. Ditto 6 and 7.

Then there's also the directing, and when Thomas Schlamme left with Sorkin a great part of bringing the show to life went with him.

That's not to say that Season 6 and 7 were terrible, they weren't. Season 5 was brutal... It took a while to get the new staff going IMO.

Not sure about Bartlet for America, but there was an installment which featured Glenn Close, not a particular favorite of mine, which nevertheless stands out as one of the best things I've ever seen on TV -- you could scarcely dream of it getting better or more intelligent than that, and I'm not even certain what season that was from -- if it was 5, then there is your answer to Bartlet For America.

It might well be very interesting to discuss the subtleties of character interaction you speak of, but that would require more research than I am willing to devote myself to at this time, but I will continue to watch STUDIO 60.

Now is THAT meeting your Sorkin standard thus far?

Finally caught the episode last night -- enjoyed it from beginning to end.

Really liked the story-line about stealing the joke and trying to correct it on the air. This had the quick-paced important issue feel that West Wing had and Studio 60 hasn't quite created.

I read through the thread today and have a couple of opinions:

1) I really believe plot-line was the reason for the West Wing getting worse in Season 5, not the loss of Sorkin. Season 6 and 7 were great -- and Season 7 was one of my favorites. I really wish we could have scene the new regime come in.

2) As I said before -- the show within the show doesn't need to be funny for me to believe people think it is. People watched all the reality TV crap so a show can definitely become a popular phenomenon without me liking it! Since it is obvious that this show is very similar to The West Wing -- I guess it is easier to be President than to be funny!

3) I enjoy the fast-paced banter of the show -- I don't think it is too much and has robotic acting because of the pace. I think the robotic acting is because the actors haven't been given enough in their character yet to know how to act as the character. These "Studio 60 Cast" needs to be given more to work with so they can develop.

4) The ratings scare me. I enjoy this show a lot and hope it makes it, but I will be surprised if it finished the season. It is too bad, because this is already the show I look forward to the most each week (edging out House and NCIS).

Not sure about Bartlet for America, but there was an installment which featured Glenn Close, not a particular favorite of mine, which nevertheless stands out as one of the best things I've ever seen on TV -- you could scarcely dream of it getting better or more intelligent than that, and I'm not even certain what season that was from -- if it was 5, then there is your answer to Bartlet For America.

It might well be very interesting to discuss the subtleties of character interaction you speak of, but that would require more research than I am willing to devote myself to at this time, but I will continue to watch STUDIO 60.

Now is THAT meeting your Sorkin standard thus far?

You're talking about an episode called "The Supremes" from season 5. And the cadence of the dialogue is missing. It was a decent episode, but not a great episode as Bartlet for America was.

It's difficult to compare an episode like Bartlet for America, which is about personal relationships with The Supremes, which is not about personal relationships.

In the end, The Supremes didn't invoke a strong emotional response, and Bartlet For America did. And that is probably the best gauge for whether or not the director/writer/actors have done their job.

I don't think that Sorkin is the best writer on the planet or that Thomas Schlamme is the best director on the planet. I think they're one of the best teams working on television though.

Cheers,

Oh yes, I would agree completely that it is difficult to compare different episodes -- no doubt about that. And I will also say that the impression the Glenn Close installment left me with was one of awe at how intelligently dialog could be written to convey a host of things simultaneously -- backstory/history, fleshing out of characters, political opinions, etc., all coming at you with a dry but razor sharp wit. Don't recall feeling particularly attracted to the characters to address your relationship assertion, but then Glenn Close will do that to me (maybe a little too traumatized still by Fatal Attraction).

I might contend that the episode was very much about relationships, but as I say, I don't seem to recall it pulling on any heartstrings, if that is what you mean. Anyway, it was nice that that installment hailed from season 5, as it illustrates perfectly what I was saying -- that, to me, was a standout, killer 40 minutes -- discussed it at length with my sister (who also does not like Close). And was I missing Sorkin at that time?.... I think you know the answer.

I agree with John Kotches' basic summary - it's not the individual word/s of Sorkin (or any other gifted writer/team), it's the overarching "total package" and quality that is either present in full force or not. No one was ever suggesting that anyone could pin-point the precise sentence of dialogue where Sorkin left and the lesser lights began to write for West Wing (your take on this appears too literal to me). But there was a definite sense (for me) of reduction in quality and visceral connection of characters through the dialogue that went lacking post-Sorkin/Schlamme. Other shows have exhibited the same thing - most obvious are those shows written and run by David Kelley. You can almost sense when Kelley gives up active participation or interest in a show. It's nearly tangible. And, I don't think it's anything akin to the Rembrandt analogy. There are other values at play there, certainly not an apples-to-apples comparison.

As for Studio 60, the Sorkin wit is there along with some nicely spliced dialogue - his forte. This time, however, it is surrounded by a much less interesting set of characters in much less interesting circumstances. I'm reasonably hopeful Sorkin is getting writing assistance on this one. I would find it difficult to believe he came up with that juvenile "sign the bat - sign the boot" bit on his own. So, you may be partly correct - you can't always identify the creator by observing the creation.

It's not just the wit though, it's personal touches too.

Look at the interaction between Matt Perry (Matt Albie) and Sarah Paulson (Harriet Hayes) in Episode 2...

When asked why she didn't get a laugh, Matt Perry said "You asked for the laugh, instead of the butter." In the grand scheme of things, that isn't a great line. It's the interaction between the characters that led up to this which made it a nice small moment.

There are many small interactions between characters like this that Sorkin (et al on the writing staff) does very well IMO.

flint350:

You may well be right that no one was exactly claiming to know a specific point -- I was addressing a very typical impulse people seem to have to simply go along with prevailing wisdom to appear in synch with the best judgments of intelligent minds, when they really don't know whereof they speak.

As far as Rembrandt goes, if the issue is whether an artist can be identified through his work -- I would submit this is plagued with pitfalls, whether visual arts. or literary, or musical. I did note it as a "curious item" and was aware that there were plenty of disciminations that could be drawn.

In any event, I think you have explained WW's loss of Sorkin more adequately than anyone previous, but do I also detect that you did not find the post-Sorkin era to be terrible TV? For my money, few things on TV come close to the last three seasons of WW. As good as previous seasons? -WOW- that kind of question is pretty much unapproachable.

I agree with John Kotches' basic summary - it's not the individual word/s of Sorkin (or any other gifted writer/team), it's the overarching "total package" and quality that is either present in full force or not. No one was ever suggesting that anyone could pin-point the precise sentence of dialogue where Sorkin left and the lesser lights began to write for West Wing (your take on this appears too literal to me). But there was a definite sense (for me) of reduction in quality and visceral connection of characters through the dialogue that went lacking post-Sorkin/Schlamme.

Very well said, flint; I concur with every word. See....? We agree again! (and hell hath not frozen over...) :D ;)

but do I also detect that you did not find the post-Sorkin era to be terrible TV?

Your detector is working correctly! However, while not "terrible TV", it was a good deal less than it once was. You can not easily find (if at all) a scenario like that of the first season leading up to Rob Lowe's coup de grace line: "This is bad on so many levels". Priceless.

See....? We agree again! (and hell hath not frozen over...)

This is bad on so many levels. :D :D

2) As I said before -- the show within the show doesn't need to be funny for me to believe people think it is. People watched all the reality TV crap so a show can definitely become a popular phenomenon without me liking it! Since it is obvious that this show is very similar to The West Wing -- I guess it is easier to be President than to be funny!
The problem I have with the show-with-the-show being crappy is that it makes me want these producers to fail for making a crappy show since they're actually ruining television instead of improving it. However everything in the real show wants the audience to think they're improving television and we should want them to succeed.

It's one of those "cognitive dissonance" things. :confused:

There is a segment in this week's show that is in as bad taste as I have ever seen on any show. It's truly disgusting and it shocks me that it got through S&P. I was totally stunned watching it.

I struggle to think of anything that would offend that much to be disgusting?

Sorry, just noticed you meant tonight and a show not yet viewed by most.

Looking forward to that segment. Hopefully it can generate watercooler talk.

I struggle to think of anything that would offend that much to be disgusting?

Obviously can't say until it's aired but it won't be hard to miss.

There is a segment in this week's show that is in as bad taste as I have ever seen on any show. It's truly disgusting and it shocks me that it got through S&P. I was totally stunned watching it.


Obviously you have strong negative views on "Studio 60".

And from your comment, it seems apparent you have missed the past decade of Fox programming.

Not even mentioning a innumerable foul-mouthed comedies and "reality" shows over the years, no matter what "got through S&P" in this week's episode of "Studio 60" it is hard to believe it is more gut-wrenching than, for example, Fox's entire concept and broadcast of "Who's Your Daddy?".

What I'd like to know is how Zissou has seen this episode before anyone else in the country...?

And one person's "disgusting" is another's "cool!", so I'd take his comments with a grain of salt. He could have put it in spoilers if he was that hot 'n bothered by it.

What I'd like to know is how Zissou has seen this episode before anyone else in the country...?

And one person's "disgusting" is another's "cool!", so I'd take his comments with a grain of salt. He could have put it in spoilers if he was that hot 'n bothered by it.

He doesn't state a location, but I'd bet he's either in Canada or watched the show via a Canadian DBS service.

Obviously you have strong negative views on "Studio 60".

And from your comment, it seems apparent you have missed the past decade of Fox programming.

Not even mentioning a innumerable foul-mouthed comedies and "reality" shows over the years, no matter what "got through S&P" in this week's episode of "Studio 60" it is hard to believe it is more gut-wrenching than, for example, Fox's entire concept and broadcast of "Who's Your Daddy?".

This is of a different level than the Fox atrocities.

Guess I'll have to watch it live tonight rather than off the DVR.
Can't wait.

I haven't seen a truly disgusting act on TV since Randy Moss fake mooned the crowd at Lambeau Field a few years ago... :rolleyes:

I guess you don't watch CSPAN ;)

It's not a disgusting act it's a sketch in incredibly bad taste.

it's a sketch in incredibly bad taste.
I can't wait.

Can't wait either! We need a little good cutting edge comedy on TV these days.

Sounds to me like a shill for the network trying to build ratings via implied scandal!! :D :D

If S60 wasn't already on my season pass list - I'd have added it. Shill or not, it worked. :)

I've been busy the past two monday nights, and now I need to make this a must see. I wish my Tivo was in service.

Another great show tonight. I am really starting to like this show. It didn't hurt to have Sting on and the guy doing Cage was great.

It's not a disgusting act it's a sketch in incredibly bad taste.

Maybe I have warped taste buds, but I didn't catch anything remotely questionable. What exactly was the part you found offensive?

Maybe I have warped taste buds, but I didn't catch anything remotely questionable. What exactly was the part you found offensive?

Yeah, same here. Didn't see a thing that was even close to offensive. :confused:

I can only imagine he's upset about the Natalee Holloway take off - which is REALLY a stretch for the rant he gave. He must be a Nancy Grace fan.

I think he just dislikes the show, and is trying to get people to not watch it by saying there is something so horrible, that it is unwatchable...talk about a hater.

I personally love the show, and I think the general consensus is that it is a great show

Great show tonight. Funny moment when they revealed that Les Moonves picked up the repulsive reality show.

was the whole sting thing a joke? kind of a rip on him? or did he really release an album where he plays the lute?

was the whole sting thing a joke? kind of a rip on him? or did he really release an album where he plays the lute?

Yes he just released Songs From the Labyrinth.

Yeah, same here. Didn't see a thing that was even close to offensive. :confused:

Ditto. Maybe they get a saucier version in Canada. :D

I can only imagine he's upset about the Natalee Holloway take off - which is REALLY a stretch for the rant he gave. He must be a Nancy Grace fan.

It was the Holloway thing. Just showed extremely bad taste and how they're stretching to be "cool".

It was the Holloway thing. Just showed extremely bad taste and how they're stretching to be "cool".

Perhaps, but the way you played it up earlier, I was really expecting - and anticipating - something much racier. Total letdown and definitely not a watercooler moment. You led us down one of those typical (TV announcer voice) "And you won't believe what happens in the last five minutes" moments where nothing of consequence happens in the last five minutes.

Perhaps, but the way you played it up earlier, I was really expecting - and anticipating - something much racier. Total letdown and definitely not a watercooler moment. You led us down one of those typical (TV announcer voice) "And you won't believe what happens in the last five minutes" moments where nothing of consequence happens in the last five minutes.

To me it was in extraordinary bad taste and really had no place on the show. Hell it's off limits for SNL and the late night talk shows but S60 thought they'd be cutting edge. I feel sorry for her family and friends if they saw it. Racy is fine, mocking somone's death is inexcusable.

To me it was in extraordinary bad taste and really had no place on the show. Hell it's off limits for SNL and the late night talk shows but S60 thought they'd be cutting edge. I feel sorry for her family and friends if they saw it. Racy is fine, mocking someoen's death is inexcusable.

Fair enough.

I understand somewhat the "bad taste" comment, but frankly I think the people they were mocking is Foxnews etc. who carried the coverage to such extreme distaste. They basically used this sad situation to create there own little cottage news story to promote themselves and there network. Helping the family resolve there issue appeared as if it was just a nice little by product and I believe it is that S60 was mocking and deservedly so.

To me it was in extraordinary bad taste and really had no place on the show.
Wow, Mr. Sensitive! It was brilliant. Perhaps something along the lines of Spongebob would cater to your sensitivities. If you haven't been following the plotline, the goal is to remove the boundaries that were previously strangling the show.

...and I think the general consensus is that it is a great show

Really?

Not that it matters, because what you (or I) enjoy is what is important, but are you speaking of a general consensus of critics, AVS members or the viewing public?

I think many of us think it is somewhere between above average to great. A surprisingly large number of people who have commented at the "Hot Off The Press" sticky have said it is their biggest disappointment of the new season.
'
The critics seemed to originally bow down to Sorkin's resume, but have been less than overwhelmingly kind since the season started.

And as you know the public has not rushed to embrace the program. The ratings are slipping and perhaps of even more importance, each week they seem to drop off fairly dramatically during the hour as the show continues.

Personally, "Studio 60" was the new show I looked forward to the most, and while I have been enjoying it, it is also the biggest disappointment.

Perhaps it is the subject matter. Come on, when Josh and C.J. and the rest of The West Wing staff wrestled with problems, the lives of millions could be at stake.

When Josh, oops, Danny deals with problems now, it is, after all, just a freakin' TV show. There is no real import to the outside world.

"Studio 60" still has, IMO, the potential to be a great show. It certainly has moments. But to say the "consensus" is that it is a great show, I believe, is pretty far off.

I read something this morning saying it would be incredibly costly for NBC to pull the plug on "Studio 60" until it completes its 13th episode. (Something in the language of the contract.) After that though, it's like any other show. I know many around here think they won't yank it because the target advertising audience is very wealthy, but there's going to come a time when the companies advertising during "Studio 60" start asking for a discount if the ratings continue to plummet. And if the target audience is wealthy, then explain to me why they ran an ad for the Sesame Street Children's Workbench last night? That's a $20 toy sitting on the shelves of your local Wal-Mart I'm sure. :)

Oh and for what it's worth, I thought last night's show was one of the weakest of the season. Not exactly an episode that would attract new viewers.

...there's going to come a time when the companies advertising during "Studio 60" start asking for a discount if the ratings continue to plummet.

I want to know what advertisers are going to do once they figure out we're skipping their commercials with our DVR's. As the number of homes with DVR's go up, are we going to only get shows with product placements? I certainly hope this is not the alternative.

When Josh, oops, Danny deals with problems now, it is, after all, just a freakin' TV show. There is no real import to the outside world.Reminds me of a cartoon where one brain surgeon says to another during a delicate operation "Well it's not like this is show business".

I want to know what advertisers are going to do once they figure out we're skipping their commercials with our DVR's. As the number of homes with DVR's go up, are we going to only get shows with product placements? I certainly hope this is not the alternative.


The alternative is we watch the commercials. Product placement is one price we pay for 30-second skips.

Of course the people without DVRs pay twice -- they get to see the commercials AND the product placement.

(From Marc Berman’s Tuesday, October 17, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )

“…It was no contest, as usual, at 10 p.m. with CBS’ CSI: Miami at a 12.6/20 in the overnights, 17.62 million viewers and a 5.6/14 among adults 18-49. In contrast, NBC’s competing Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip cannot stop the bleeding at a series-low 6.6/10 in the overnights (#2), 7.76 million viewers (#3) and a 3.1/ 8 among adults 18-49 (#3). Comparatively, retention for Studio 60 out of Heroes was just 73 percent in the overnights, 59 percent in total viewers and 54 percent among adults 18-49. While ABC’s What About Brian is not much better at a 4.4/ 7 in the overnights (#3), 8.30 million viewers (#2) and a 3.5/ 9 among adults 18-49 (#2), retention out of The Bachelor: Rome was considerably higher at 80 percent in the overnights, 84 percent in total viewers and 95 percent among adults 18-49. In other words, Studio 60 is the loser here, not What About Brian….”

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp

Monday Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
NBC's 'Studio 60' tumbles to new low
Troubled drama falls 18 percent, to a 3.1 in 18-49s
By Toni Fitzgerald medialifemagazine staff writer Oct 17, 2006

After recording its first week-to-week uptick in ratings last week, NBC’s highly touted drama “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” dipped to a series-low for last night’s episode, erasing all of the previous week’s gains and then some.

The 10 p.m. show averaged a 3.1 in adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights, down 18 percent from last week’s 3.8. It was also down 9 percent from the show’s previous low, a 3.4 on Oct. 2.

“Strip” dipped to third place in the timeslot, behind ABC’s “What About Brian,” which was up week to week from its premiere.

So what’s the problem with “Strip?” Though certainly one issue, already raised by media people, is that the show is too inside Hollywood to draw non-media junkies, it may also be that the show’s quality is sliding.

After an excellent pilot, the show has slumped into inertia of sorts, with a love story that doesn’t go anywhere and no overall plotline giving the show urgency. Another issue is the writing for the show-within-a-show’s comedy sketches. They’re rarely funny, and they take up too much of the program’s time.

Certainly all new shows go through ups and downs creatively, and though the stories may have faltered, creator Aaron Sorkin still offers crackling dialogue. But this latest ratings downturn is certainly not good for a show that media people already tabbed the year’s most disappointing in a recent Media Life poll....

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_7955.asp

To me it was in extraordinary bad taste and really had no place on the show.

I thought the bit with Lauren Graham about freezing embryos was in worse taste, but neither sketch were particularly offensive to me. The Nancy Grace
sketch was making fun of her reporting, not Natalie Holloway,
and frankly, Nancy Grace and Fox News deserve to take some heat over their reporting of the missing girl.

In fact, my wife and I thought it was a pretty good episode. We were initially bored when it appeared, almost immediately, to be another episode about bashing the Christians, but then it turned in to a nice story about characters and became more interesting.

Oh and for what it's worth, I thought last night's show was one of the weakest of the season. Not exactly an episode that would attract new viewers.Different tastes I guess. For me I thought last night's ep was maybe the best since the pilot. Christine Lahti was in her usual good form, and I thought the reality show thread was well done. But overall, the characters just seemed more natural and realistic to me. It felt like the actors are beginning to settle into their characters more now and are giving them the little nuances that make them more human and less portrayal. It's really too bad about the continuing poor ratings.


ron

I understand somewhat the "bad taste" comment, but frankly I think the people they were mocking is Foxnews etc. who carried the coverage to such extreme distaste. They basically used this sad situation to create there own little cottage news story to promote themselves and there network. Helping the family resolve there issue appeared as if it was just a nice little by product and I believe it is that S60 was mocking and deservedly so.Exactly. And it ties in nicely with one of the points of the fired producer's rant in the pilot when he said, "Guys are getting killed in a war that’s got theme music and a logo". The commercialization of the news and "events" around the world...


ron

Wow, Mr. Sensitive! It was brilliant. Perhaps something along the lines of Spongebob would cater to your sensitivities. If you haven't been following the plotline, the goal is to remove the boundaries that were previously strangling the show.

Sorry I consider mocking the death of a teenager to be in incredibly bad taste. If you see nothing wrong with it I'd be concerned about your ability to sympathize or empathize.
Perhaps next week they can do a sketch about shooting lessons for the Amish.

Sorry I consider mocking the death of a teenager to be in incredibly bad taste. Perhaps next week they can do a sketch about shooting lessons for the Amish.
Your credibilty: gone. I'd agree with you if that's what they were mocking, but they clearly aren't. As it's been discussed on here many times, they are mocking the media response to the tragedy, not the tragedy itself. It sounds like you are clamoring for this show to fail and are grasping at straws in an attempt to ridicule it.

BTW, great idea on the shooting lessons.

The real Nancy Grace is the one in incredibly bad taste, IMO.

The skit obviously mocked her and not the death of the girl.

There is a segment in this week's show that is in as bad taste as I have ever seen on any show. It's truly disgusting and it shocks me that it got through S&P. I was totally stunned watching it.


Looking back at your original post, it seems almost unbelievable.

Have you ever watched Nancy Grace? (Maybe the night she badgered the mother of a missing toddler so much the woman committed suicide?)

Or any of her relentless, week-after-week, over-the-top "coverage" of the Holloway case?

Give us all a break.

If the "Studio 60" episode truly shocked you, perhaps you have spent far too long in sensitivity training. A few weeks of being forced to watch Fox's new "comedies", CNN, or (to avoid the appearance of partisanship) the FNC prime time lineup should cure you.

I have to agree with the consensus on this one. It wasn't that "shocking" or even in truly bad taste, IMO. It was properly satirizing the Fox coverage and not the event itself. The general allusion to the event by placing it in Aruba was the point of topicality, but was never directly addressed, discussed or in any way trivialized. Of course, that's easy for us non-Holloway's to say. Possibly if one of them viewed it, it could be seen as somewhat bad judgment since it would be so personal. Still, I think they handled it reasonably well and made their (valid) point about the lengths and depths some media outlets will go to for a so-called story.

As for the show itself, it remains just above average for me. One thing I can't seem to ever get past is that Bradley Whitford is still playing WW's Josh in a new job. I have never seen such a carryover of a character in almost every nuance, when it's not supposed to be the same person. It was one of my most anticipated and is fast joining my most disappointing.

I have to agree with the consensus on this one. It wasn't that "shocking" or even in truly bad taste, IMO. It was properly satirizing the Fox coverage and not the event itself.

How is it satirizing FOX News when Nancy Grace works for CNN? Am I missing something here?

Danny Trip is Josh Lyman with better clothes, but that doesn't bother me.

Danny Trip is Josh Lyman with better clothes, but that doesn't bother me.

I think it's more like Bradley Whitford plays Bradley Whitford in whatever he does. When he's seen in interviews and appearances as himself, he seems just like Danny or Josh playing Bradley Whitford. ;)

How is it satirizing FOX News when Nancy Grace works for CNN? Am I missing something here?

I was wondering how long before someone put together that little fact.

I find it somewhat amusing that the people in this thread who like Sorkin's higher IQ writing style - and thus the appeal of Studio 60 and all its Hollywood inside references - failed to note that little fact - showing that we are all just morons on the bus :D

I thought the bit with Lauren Graham about freezing embryos was in worse taste,

A woman's unfertilized eggs are not the same thing as an "embryo", FYI.

How is it satirizing FOX News when Nancy Grace works for CNN? Am I missing something here?

I was thinking the same thing. It was slamming her, yet those that claim it was also slamming the coverage, they then jump to FNC as the target instead of her home at CNN. :rolleyes:

I was thinking the same thing. It was slamming her, yet those that claim it was also slamming the coverage, they then jump to FNC as the target instead of her home at CNN. :rolleyes:

But it's FNC and its viewers with the bias remember? :D

Back to the show, they really, really, really need to drop the Harriet-religion scenes. How many does that make now? For Christ's sake, WE GET IT AARON!

I think it's more like Bradley Whitford plays Bradley Whitford in whatever he does. When he's seen in interviews and appearances as himself, he seems just like Danny or Josh playing Bradley Whitford. ;)

NOT IN BILLY MADISON!!!

Gosh!

(As posted on the Hot Off The Press sticky)

Nielsen Freefall for “Studio 60”
Ratings Consistent: Down each week

Here are the numbers for “Studio 60” so far this season. They are not pretty.

(The first four weeks are final national numbers, week five are the fast nationals.)

Week 1: #22 13.14 million viewers
Week 2: #33 10.82 million viewers
Week 3: #47 8.85 million viewers
Week #4 #50 8.66 million viewers
Week #5 ** 7.76 million viewers

(** 7.76 million viewers would have placed “Studio 60” in 60th place in last week’s ratings.)

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Wow - not encouraging at all. Hopefully a change in time slot will benefit it.

I was thinking the same thing. It was slamming her, yet those that claim it was also slamming the coverage, they then jump to FNC as the target instead of her home at CNN. :rolleyes:Man, you guys are tough! :p The poster I quoted said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkW

I understand somewhat the "bad taste" comment, but frankly I think the people they were mocking is Foxnews etc. who carried the coverage to such extreme distaste. They basically used this sad situation to create there own little cottage news story to promote themselves and there network. Helping the family resolve there issue appeared as if it was just a nice little by product and I believe it is that S60 was mocking and deservedly so.


His comment, (that I agreed with), was not directed solely at FOX news, but rather at all the outlets that went overboard in their coverage. Honestly, I didn't even recognize who the reporter/anchor was supposed to be since I watch neither CNN or FN ;). Even so, it was obvious they weren't making light of Natalee Holloway's death in the piece...



ron

But it's FNC and its viewers with the bias remember? :D

Back to the show, they really, really, really need to drop the Harriet-religion scenes. How many does that make now? For Christ's sake, WE GET IT AARON!

Its his autobiography, remember.....and Kristin Chenoweth still says she wants to be paid 10% of the profits.

http://gossip.about.com/od/celebrityinterviews/f/Kris_Chenoweth.htm

Of course, with ratings dropping like this, those profits might be a long time coming.......

I partly misspoke (posted) when I attributed the satirical treatment to Fox. My point was not really the specific network (though I was reminded of Greta Van S's endless coverage of the event on Fox), but rather the fact that the show's target was the TV coverage itself (whatever the outlet) and NOT the actual Holloway tragedy. Sorry if I confused some by saying Fox, but while I am not familiar with the CNN Nancy Grace show, I think the Fox version with Van Sustern is a good substitute. And Lord knows most would not accuse me of bashing Fox normally - although I do when I think they deserve it.

Back to the show, they really, really, really need to drop the Harriet-religion scenes. How many does that make now? For Christ's sake, WE GET IT AARON!Sangs, what's the source of the ire? Maybe I missed something? All I remember was the references that Harriet made when recalling her background for the reporter. That didn't seem like agenda pushing to me...


ron

After the first week, the show really started to show promise but as the weeks went on, IMHO, it starting to be a bore to me. For the past two weeks, I went back to watch CSI and just put the PVR for Studio 60. The show isn't a priority for me to watch anymore.


And as for Nancy Grace, I can't stand her!

My main problem with the show is the show within. I have yet to even chuckle at any of the sketches that have thus far been shown. They affect the rest of the show for me. I have a hard time taking it seriously when the characters constantly state the sketches are funny. The credibility and realism is lost for me having to sit through the sketches.

I've been noticing a big trend toward Nancy Grace bashing on TV. Boston Legal is heavy into it the last few weeks.
Not that I care. Who watches her anyway?

At least they have gotten off the Fox bashing. Must've found out you can hurt ratings picking on the viewing habits of that many people.

As for Studio 60, I actually enjoy the show. I'm someone who doesn't need blowing up buildings and constant plot twists to hold my attention. I'm more of a "tone" viewer. I like the tone of the show and the pace.

And yes, the show with-in is not very good. But that's not the point, is it?

But then again, are the sketches any worse than SNL? They maybe better.

OK, the problem with "insiderism" is this: Christine Lahti gets paid to do her thing.

People >>hate<< her. Period. She may be a wonderful lady in real life; I'm sure Thomas Schlamme thinks so.

But she is a show killer with that shtick. And it's not just off-putting to midwesterners and southerners. I'm a "coastal" type, and my wife and I want to just, well, invite her to leave.

She killed Jack and Bobby and she is NOT going to help Studio 60. I bet you if you focus grouped Studio 60, you'd find the average viewer despises her.

Studio 60 needs more Matthew Perry and more Amanda Peet -- both seem pretty terrific. It needs less, well, of the other people.

Is anyone else, besides me, drawing a parallel between the plot line to produce quality programming and the actual programming that is on NBC?

For quite some time "The West Wing" was the only show on NBC that I watched. Now my DVR is set for Studio 60, Heros, (the best two new network shows IMO), My Name is Earl and The Office (far and away the best two comedies on network).

Studio 60 needs more Matthew Perry and more Amanda Peet -- both seem pretty terrific. It needs less, well, of the other people.
Agree on the Lahti remarks, really agree we need more Perry, and especially Peet, much more Peet, and cut back on the actual skits, 'cause they really ain't that funny. More Ed Asner wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Sangs, what's the source of the ire? Maybe I missed something? All I remember was the references that Harriet made when recalling her background for the reporter. That didn't seem like agenda pushing to me...


ron

It wasn't agenda pushing, I'm just tired of her religious beliefs taking up so much screen time. What was that scene, about 10 minutes long? It seemed interminable.

Christine Lahti gets paid to do her thing.

People >>hate<< her. Period.

I must say that these statements completely baffle me ...

I'd be happy with a little less of the lobster boy.

I like this show. Iwanted to love it after Sports Night & West Wing. It just isn't as important as its subject matter is Not "Earth Shattering" Insider jokes and the beating the poor dead "Crazy Christian" horse isn't going to do it.

I still think it would have been much more intriguing for the show to have focused on turning things around. They "fixed" the show instantly, now there's no where to go but down. Spend the first season just fighting for survival.

I enjoy it, but if it's going away in a few weeks, why even bother?

Maybe they should do a sketch with the CandyGram shark from the old SNL, see if that helps.

Signed,
Jaded Fickle Viewer

it's going away in a few weeks
Source?

I said "if". Source is fredfa's viewership numbers. How low can they go?

I said "if".
OK, well, if the world blows up tomorrow, why even bother with life? It would be such a waste of time... :rolleyes:

Source is Nielsen and the long history of good shows getting cancelled because they don't appeal to 18-34 year olds.

S60 gets screwed because not only does the audience skew older, but the Heroes lead-in makes the 18-49 retention rate look horrendous.

I still think it would have been much more intriguing for the show to have focused on turning things around. They "fixed" the show instantly, now there's no where to go but down. Spend the first season just fighting for survival.
I think you're exactly right. Strong characters, great production values, snappy dialog, but there's no dramatic conflict. The only slight mystery is whether or not Chandler and the Christian will get together.

It wasn't agenda pushing, I'm just tired of her religious beliefs taking up so much screen time. What was that scene, about 10 minutes long? It seemed interminable.Well, I'm not religious....at all. So as you might imagine, I'd just as soon not hear anything related to it. But S60 is a character driven show and it seems that one of their main focuses at this point is the relationship between Perry and Paulson. Exploring how/if a person who's religious can make it work with someone who isn't and the issues it brings up. From that standpoint I think it's interesting and don't mind it so much...

I must say that these statements completely baffle me ...Me too. Clearly, the viewer is not supposed to like the character (at least not yet...). She's there digging up dirt to publish. Just like in real life, not everybody is all peaches and cream. I guess if we just want to see shows with only nice characters we could all watch Sesame Street? Reminds me of something one of my friends said to me years ago when I asked him why he didn't like Seinfeld. He said he didn't like Jerry because he's "so weird" about everything. I told him that was pretty much the whole point, but of course that didn't matter, he just didn't like him...


ron

I was thinking the same thing. It was slamming her, yet those that claim it was also slamming the coverage, they then jump to FNC as the target instead of her home at CNN. :rolleyes:

I can't speak for the others who made the mistake, but in my case, it was simply forgetting which channel the show is on. I don't watch any of the cable news channels on a regular basis, and I don't have a particular preference of one or the other. I've seen Nancy Grace's so-called "reporting" enough to know I don't like it. I just didn't remember which network she's on.

Clearly, the viewer is not supposed to like the character (at least not yet...). She's there digging up dirt to publish. Just like in real life, not everybody is all peaches and cream.

You know, I kind of like the reporter's character. It has depth. On the one hand, I dislike her because she's trying to dig for dirt and she's pretty snotty. On the other hand, I like her because she recognizes that the fact that people putting aside their differences and working together is a good thing. Except that both my wife and I noticed the cadence of the dialog is written almost exactly like the dialog for CJ Cregg on West Wing. As a result Christine Lahti's performance is kind of CJ-like.

My main problem with the show is the show within.

Yes, they should definately take a hint from other behind-the-scenes shows, and show as little as possible of the show-within-a-show, except for the occasional brilliant few lines of dialog spaced out between episodes. Examples: FYI (Murphy Brown), The Alan Brady Show (The Dick Van Dyke Show), Tool Time (Home Improvement), The WJM Six O'Clock News (Mary Tyler Moore Show) and Frasier's radio show. Don't show whole skits, don't show the writing process, don't dwell on the decisions about which skits to cut and which to keep. And especially, don't talk about how funny a skit is. Just show a few funny lines once and a while.

Don't show whole skits, don't show the writing process, don't dwell on the decisions about which skits to cut and which to keep. And especially, don't talk about how funny a skit is.
You know what this show is about, right?

I can't speak for the others who made the mistake, but in my case, it was simply forgetting which channel the show is on. I don't watch any of the cable news channels on a regular basis, and I don't have a particular preference of one or the other. I've seen Nancy Grace's so-called "reporting" enough to know I don't like it. I just didn't remember which network she's on.

Precisely what happened to me.

You know what this show is about, right?
Yes. I do. And it is failing.

The show is about a bunch of peopel who happen to work on a TV show. Like similar shows in the past, they can broaden the scope to deal with things going on outside the stage and writer's room. Given the success of the other shows I mentioned, it wouldn't be bad to take a clue from them. "Staying the Course" doesn't work in the context of this show, either.

Personally, I like the show so far. It may be 'failing' but it's an intelligently written, witty satire and many of the typical sitcom viewers probably aren't going to like it. It's probably more like Arrested Development than it is Everyone Loves Raymond in that regard. I do think that given time (and it's really far to soon to criticize the show on this front I believe) they will broaden the scope to include issues outside of the production of their show. Hopefully they will survive long enough to do so.

Personally, I feel like the show has really begun to hit its stride the past two weeks. There was a lot of exposition in the first two episodes and it wasn't always exciting getting all of the background information to establish the characters.

In the past two episodes, the writers and actors seem to have grown comfortable with each other. I have been very pleasantly surprised to find that Matthew Perry is a much better actor than I had ever suspected. I think Sarah Paulson has been good as Harriet Hayes and the chemistry between her character and Perry's character feels very natural.

I hope Studio 60 lasts long enough to find its audience. There are too many "reality" shows and not enough intelligent shows out there for my tastes. Studio 60 could become a real gem, much like Sorkin's previous shows (West Wing and Sports Night). I will miss Studio 60 if it disappears.

What's not to like about Christine Lahti? I was surprised to see her last week and I'm enjoying her digging into the show, it helps explore the back story. I didn't find her nasty or unlikeable, in fact last week if you recall during the plagiarism issue she was actually helpful. I think she's a good addition.

Precisely what happened to me.

And yet you all instinctively defaulted to slamming FOX News Channel. Interesting, wouldn't you say? :D

NBC has ordered nine more scripts of Friday Night Lights in an apparent signal the network will stick with the modestly performing rookie drama.

NBC is also planning on airing an original episode on Monday night, October 30 at 10 p.m., in place of a planned repeat episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.The network will try and use a lead-in from freshman hit drama Heroes to draw new viewers to the show.

I also heard this morning that NBC/Universal is about to undergo some serious budget cutting - they want to eliminate 3/4 of $1 billion apparently. The report said along with job cuts that several "scripted" series would be given the ax. The report didn't name the series, but with as expensive as "Studio 60" is, it leads one to wonder.

And yet you all instinctively defaulted to slamming FOX News Channel. Interesting, wouldn't you say? :D

Not me! I love FOX News. I love FOX News. I love FOX News.


Now, where's my fish biscuit? :D

I also heard this morning that NBC/Universal is about to undergo some serious budget cutting - they want to eliminate 3/4 of $1 billion apparently. The report said along with job cuts that several "scripted" series would be given the ax. The report didn't name the series, but with as expensive as "Studio 60" is, it leads one to wonder.

Wow. That's not good. NBC has been hurting since the end of Friends. Hereos will stay, but it seems we're going to be keeing shows just because they're cheap to produce. For instance, Friday Night Lights. Let's face it. They don't require real camera men to shoot that show. They could hire bums off the street and probably get steadier shots.

Anyway, I hope Las Vegas can make it through this season. Other than that, NBC can cancel Jay Leno, 30 Rock, ER, Crossing Jordan, The Office, Twenty Good Years and My Name is Earl for all I care.

Aw, c'mon. 'Earl' and 'The Office' are worth keeping; they're the funniest things on TV.

I hope Las Vegas can make it through this season. Other than that, NBC can cancel The Office and My Name is Earl for all I care.
Um... you do know they want people to watch their network, right?

I'll give Earl some credit. It is very clever. But The Office never could hook me. And I gave them plenty of chances.

As Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you are a racist, I will attack you with the North."

And yet you all instinctively defaulted to slamming FOX News Channel. Interesting, wouldn't you say? :D

Well, I certainly didn't. I did make the mistake of network identity, but I based it on Fox's coverage on a different show. I doubt anyone would accuse me of slamming Fox (ask your friend archiguy). My position was based on similar coverage, not a reflex against Fox by any means.

Aw, c'mon. 'Earl' and 'The Office' are worth keeping; they're the funniest things on TV.
And they're (relatively) cheap shows to produce too. Networks would love it if they could fill every slot with a sitcom or a reality show.

You know, I kind of like the reporter's character. It has depth. On the one hand, I dislike her because she's trying to dig for dirt and she's pretty snotty. On the other hand, I like her because she recognizes that the fact that people putting aside their differences and working together is a good thing. What's not to like about Christine Lahti? I was surprised to see her last week and I'm enjoying her digging into the show, it helps explore the back story. I didn't find her nasty or unlikeable, in fact last week if you recall during the plagiarism issue she was actually helpful. I think she's a good addition.I think they are playing her character "on the edge" at the moment, because even though she is digging for the dirt, she is not unlikeable otherwise (except to Rogo for some reason :confused: ). At this point, she hasn't even tipped her hand as to whether she will include the nasty stuff in her piece. That will determine if she's a good guy or a bad guy. Sorkin seems to like the warm hearted moments so I'm thinking he'll have her ultimately decide not to, and end up telling Matt that he owes her one. Probably find out in the next ep or two (if it doesn't get cancelled first :().


ron

And yet you all instinctively defaulted to slamming FOX News Channel. Interesting, wouldn't you say? :D

Perhaps everyone thought of it because it is watched more and has higher ratings than the other news networks? It doesn't have to be because of any political bias. It used to be that CNN was the default brand for cable news. Kinda like Kleenex and tissues. Now, maybe Fox News comes to mind first simply because of product recognition.

Yes, they should definately take a hint from other behind-the-scenes shows, and show as little as possible of the show-within-a-show, except for the occasional brilliant few lines of dialog spaced out between episodes. Examples: FYI (Murphy Brown), The Alan Brady Show (The Dick Van Dyke Show), Tool Time (Home Improvement), The WJM Six O'Clock News (Mary Tyler Moore Show) and Frasier's radio show.

Or Larry Sanders with the awful monologues/skits, which they thankfully kept to a minimum. 'Studio 60' is also taking a page from 'Sanders' by baiting guest musicians with a real album to promote and giving them on-camera time to perform. Great way to (a) reel in a guest star, (b) fill production time with easily staged-and-shot musical performances that (c) provide great background music over which (d) incidental but plot-moving character conversations can take place. But, unlike 'Studio 60,' 'Sanders' had solid comedic drama because it established so well all the behind-the-scenes players (Phil the writer in particular) that you knew what they were thinking even when they were saying something nice. This is what made Rip Torn's and everybody else's cutaway scenes while a guest was talking/performing on 'Sanders' so much fun: something important was being said while the great performance on-stage happened, not the fluff we're currently getting in 'Studio 60's' cutaways.

That's also a problem with 'Studio 60': everybody's so nice and clean (even the Lahti reporter and displaced head writers have shreds of dignity) that you don't buy them as creative people working in Hollywood. Everybody that's worked for the entertainment industry (myself included in post-production chores) knows that talent and behind-the-scenes people are just as prone to being selfish or arrogant as to being nice or attentive. Sorkin's creations in 'Studio 60' are too lily-white and pure for them to be believable, even when they're acting selfish and pretentious. This became clear to me with last week's subplot about the innocent crew lady that revealed to the Lahti character some info that anybody in the industry would know not to reveal (or do so under the deepest of background confidentiality). The only character that is even close to realistic is Steven Weber's Jack Rudolph, whom I often find myself agreeing with more than Amanda Peet's Jordan McDeere despite Sorkin's best efforts to paint Rudolph as the bad guy. Yes, I would have taken the degrading reality show from the Burnett-lookalike to pay the bills and hopefully (with the profits made from it) stay around my job long-enough to greenlight critically-acclaimed shows unlikely to appeal to Middle America's most debased tastes. You know, shows like 'Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip' (which despite my negative tone I'm in love with and will watch 'till there are no more).

Its his autobiography, remember.....and Kristin Chenoweth still says she wants to be paid 10% of the profits.

http://gossip.about.com/od/celebrityinterviews/f/Kris_Chenoweth.htm

Of course, with ratings dropping like this, those profits might be a long time coming.......

She'll get 10% of whatever I end up paying for the Box Set (notice I didn't say 'Boxed Sets' :() of 'Studio 60' when it goes up next to my 'Sports Night' DVD's. BTW, I've never seen a single episode of 'West Wing' because I'm a political junkie that is busy enough keeping up with the real politicos to memorize a whole slew of fictitious one's. Am I missing something or is 'West Wing' really that good? Forget the Emmy's, does the show have a heart or is it an empty vessel for Sorkin's political distopia in dialogue form? I'm curious, and have the cash and willingness to catch-up if the price is right. And I do think John Wells is the devil and wouldn't come within artillery shell distance of anything this man touches or creates. ;)

I guess I'm the first to say it - this was easily the worst episode yet, and it could've been one of the best. An entire episode that didn't have to focus on the upcoming show had so much potential.

The storyline with Matt and Simon was very interesting. However, it is absolutely not possible that Tom's parents wouldn't know of the "Who's On First?" sketch. I don't care if they're from the most remote corner of Alaska, much less Columbus, OH - everyone 80 and under would understand that reference. And then we get the ridiculous cliche with the "youngest son is in a war zone so the whole world stops spinning" outburst.

Overall I really like this show and I want to see it succeed. And I certainly won't write it off after one weak episode... let's just hope it's not a sign of things to come.

Yeah, not much to write home about with this episode. Maybe this should have been a mini-series.

Yeah, not much to write home about with this episode. Maybe this should have been a mini-series.

I thought Jordan trying to make new friends was cute and funny.

I thought their trying to hide her pregnancy (holding a coat all the time at the party, walking behind a desk, strategically placing other actors in the way so you can't see her from the side) is beginning to get rather old and obvious after 2 weeks of it....and many more episodes to go....if it makes it that long.

Friday Night Lights is airing in Studio 60's slot next Monday. I haven't watched last night's episode yet so I don't know it they announced that Studio 60 was moving to another day. According to the listings on NBC's site it's not airing at all next week.

I thought Jordan trying to make new friends was cute and funny.

Yes, and the three bimbos who don't understand what a writer does were hilarious. I have a feeling that's taken from real experience.

The Eli Wallach storyline was too sappy, and the parents not understanding Who's On First was also too much of a stretch, but neither was as bad as last week's Sting cameo where the entire show stopped so that he could plug his album.

Friday Night Lights is airing in Studio 60's slot next Monday. I haven't watched last night's episode yet so I don't know it they announced that Studio 60 was moving to another day. According to the listings on NBC's site it's not airing at all next week.
They said S60 will return with a new episode in two weeks.

Wow! Are we on different pages. (Settle down Mark Foley, not that sort of page.)
I LOVED last nights episode. It was about allot of things. History, relationships, parents, racism , opportunity, faith in others, hope and trust. It just wasn't about bits within the show being funny.
I thought it was the best since the opener.
Tee Jay

I enjoyed last night's episode, too, though it wasn't as good as last weeks (which I thought the best of the series so far).

And i disagree about nobody not knowing the "Who's on First" routine. You'd be surprised what "common" stuff that some people don't know (or care) anything about.

I had the impression that the parents didn't even know who Abbot and Costello were. It wasn't just the routine.

And the "trying to make friends" bit must have been written by someone from "left field." It just didn't fit the character that we have been shown for the last several weeks.

I did love the tour guide bit, though.

I LOVED last nights episode. It was about allot of things. History, relationships, parents, racism , opportunity, faith in others, hope and trust. It just wasn't about bits within the show being funny.
I thought it was the best since the opener.

I agree. This was the first show where I really thought they were making the characters more than simple 2 dimensional cut-outs. I especially thought it was great that they finally let D.L. Hughley get some air time and display his drama chops. This was by far my favorite episode, and I hope they have more like it.

In the unlikely event that the show lasts more than 13 episodes, it'll be because they didn't make many shows like last night's.

My take: Eli Wallach story had some touching appeal, but was over-played to the sappy level (as suggested). The not knowing "Who's On First" idea was absurd, along with the attached story-line of the son-in-battle so that Sorkin could get in an anti-war scream. The 3 bimbettes were funny as hell, though possibly just a little too dumb ("what does a writer do?" - please, a better example of stupidity was in order). I liked DL Hughley's story line, but thought they failed to make the replacement new writer sufficiently impressive to deserve such immediate hiring. Last, the Jordan wants to make friends story - cute, funny and well handled, just out of place in this show and her character's normal traits. Overall, some interest, but not enough to save it or continue watching it much longer, barring drastic improvement.

(From Marc Berman’s Tuesday, October 24, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )

“…First at 10 p.m., of course, was CBS’ rock-solid CSI: Miami at a 12.6/19 in the overnights, 17.49 million viewers and a 6.0/15 among adults 18-49. A distant second was NBC’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (Overnights: 6.3/10; Viewers: 7.70 million; A18-49: 3.1/ 8), followed by ABC drama What About Brian (Overnights: 4.1/ 6; Viewers: 6.02 million; A18-49: 2.6/ 7). Both Studio 60 and What About Brian declined by double-digit percentages from their lead-ins…”

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp

I also thought last night's episode was excellent, one of the best. Even my wife who has been ambivalent about the show sat thru' the whole episode and said she thought it was getting really good.
Bish

Still watching, but it’s getting harder......still hoping it will hit it’s stride

Flint and Cpan hit the mark. This episode especially, had a lot of stuff that was contrived and unbelievable to the point of being a serious distraction. (The body armor, the LP, getting Wallach’s whole military record at 1:00AM, and surprise, the producer’s a WWII buff, plus the stuff already mentioned). I think there’s a good series here if they would drop the real gimmicky stuff and trust the underlying stories and the characters. Less is more.

I don't understand why this show has not found an audience.

Wait a minute, yes I do. I just have to think back a few years to one of my favorite shows of all time: Sports Night. :)

This is a great show, that most likely will get cancelled. My wife and I are enjoying it while we can.

About last night's show, yes it is completely believable that there are people who don't know about "Who's on first." Just remember that there are a lot of clueless people in this world. Hence the "what does a writer do?"

tim

(The body armor, the LP, getting Wallach’s whole military record at 1:00AM, and surprise, the producer’s a WWII buff, plus the stuff already mentioned).

You see I don't think of those things as gimmicks. A comedian on a sketch show who has a background in theatre would have access to a recording of Who's on first. Ok, maybe not an LP, but still.

Getting Wallach's military record, with Google and some good contacts almost anything can be found.

And working as a tech director, I am very grateful for how Timothy Busfield's character is portrayed. I just commented to my wife last night how "right" they have his character. Most tech directors/producers have a hobby that involves history/biographies/wars/etc. Spot on.

Enjoying it while I can.


tim

You see I don't think of those things as gimmicks. A comedian on a sketch show who has a background in theatre would have access to a recording of Who's on first. Ok, maybe not an LP, but still.

Getting Wallach's military record, with Google and some good contacts almost anything can be found.

And working as a tech director, I am very grateful for how Timothy Busfield's character is portrayed. I just commented to my wife last night how "right" they have his character. Most tech directors/producers have a hobby that involves history/biographies/wars/etc. Spot on.

Enjoying it while I can.


tim

There's a huge difference in someone who has worked all their life as the parents had and a "wellness" major from Tempe. As I happened to be seeing a swimsuit model who was a "wellness" major several years ago, I can assure you they portrayed her mentally ability to the letter.

You see I don't think of those things as gimmicks. A comedian on a sketch show who has a background in theatre would have access to a recording of Who's on first. Ok, maybe not an LP, but still.

Getting Wallach's military record, with Google and some good contacts almost anything can be found.

And working as a tech director, I am very grateful for how Timothy Busfield's character is portrayed. I just commented to my wife last night how "right" they have his character. Most tech directors/producers have a hobby that involves history/biographies/wars/etc. Spot on.

Enjoying it while I can.


tim

All this at 1:00 AM Saturday? Okay......

Maybe it’s more that some stuff is just too contrived or over-the-top, and so blatantly, obviously inserted to make an unnecessary “statement” that just distracts from what are fundamentally interesting story lines and characters.

Also, still trying to enjoy while I can.

All this at 1:00 AM Saturday? Okay......

Maybe it’s more that some stuff is just too contrived or over-the-top, and so blatantly, obviously inserted to make an unnecessary “statement” that just distracts from what are fundamentally interesting story lines and characters.

Also, still trying to enjoy while I can.

Actually 10pm (3 hour time difference in East and West Coast) and the Tower Records location to the west on Sunset was open until Midnight (up until recently), but who's counting......

Actually 10pm (3 hour time difference in East and West Coast) and the Tower Records location to the west on Sunset was open until Midnight (up until recently), but who's counting......
I must have missed the part where he left his visiting parents at the after party while he went in seach of vintage vinyl. :)

Well, I tried hanging in there. After about 20 minutes, I nuked it and removed this program from my PVR settings.

It isn't my cup of tea, I really tried to get into it but you know, I have watched dry TV dramas that were written poorly - not saying this is written great either - and I have enjoyed it. I enjoyed "Sportsnight". In fact, I loved that show. This show is just draggy.

Sorry for the harshness but these are my opinions.

The two things that stuck out for me as particularly annoying:

1) Recounting the guy's D-Day activities like they were really cool - oblivious to the fact that dredging up those memories might not be a pleasant experience for him. Eli Wallach's character even looked pained when he started, but he just kept going with the details.

2) Covering the Philco Comedy Hour/ Blacklist issue on the tour - then having Eli show up the same day as a Philco writer who happened to be blacklisted. That's the kind of thing that as a viewer, it's nice to happen at least a few episodes later so you can recall what was said in an earlier episode.

#2 may just be a personal preference - I said the same thing about the "scar" reference in Heroes. It's nice to forget about things that were setup in an earlier episode and when they unfold much later, you kind of feel rewarded as a long time viewer.

Still watching, but it’s getting harder......still hoping it will hit it’s stride

Flint and Cpan hit the mark. This episode especially, had a lot of stuff that was contrived and unbelievable to the point of being a serious distraction. (The body armor, the LP, getting Wallach’s whole military record at 1:00AM, and surprise, the producer’s a WWII buff, plus the stuff already mentioned). I think there’s a good series here if they would drop the real gimmicky stuff and trust the underlying stories and the characters. Less is more.

The military history of Wallach and the group's reaction to it was designed to show that people from the left really do admire and SUPPORT the military despite the current conflict in Iraq. ............ Really transparent. So corny. So warm and fuzzy. (and we're not supposed to notice, I suppose.)

How many of the criticisms in this thread could be applied to The West Wing. Hitting you over the head with Sorkin’s message/point of view, convenient coincidents that create sappy moments. Even the critique of Jordan’s character being so different in this episode. Fans of WW, go back and watch the first few episodes of that to see how much the characters changed and the show evolved over just the first dozen episodes or so.

Most of S60 isn’t that hard to believe, if you’re watching the show for entertainment and enjoyment. One person is getting tired of Peat hiding her pregnancy on camera. Who cares? If it’s that distracting to you, you certainly aren’t enjoying the show. Stop watching.

I haven’t visited the Heroes thread, but are the people there (presumably some of you also) so critical of minut details that are unexplained or hard to believe?

It’s freaking hilarious to me that there are so many of the same criticisms of the show made by different people, but so many are in disagreement how they apply.

Some agree that the 3 girls were believable and funny and the parents couldn’t be so ignorant, while others say the girls couldn’t be so dumb, but the parents could be.

Every week I watch the show and have enjoyed it. (This last episode was pretty good. I’d rank it 3rd after last week and the pilot.) Then I come and read your comments, because I obviously have a masochistic need to read how so many of you think this show is terrible, but continue to watch, or complain the show is terrible, but you still like it, or the show is terrible, but it’s better than most of what’s on TV.

If you dislike the show so much, stop watching. Much like I don’t like reading your complaints about it so I will stop visiting this thread.

I must have missed the part where he left his visiting parents at the after party while he went in seach of vintage vinyl. :)

That's why the have the runners, errr, Production Assistants :D




Most of S60 isn’t that hard to believe, if you’re watching the show for entertainment and enjoyment. One person is getting tired of Peat hiding her pregnancy on camera. Who cares? If it’s that distracting to you, you certainly aren’t enjoying the show. Stop watching.

Given the current ratings decline, they can't afford to loose anyone else.



If you dislike the show so much, stop watching. Much like I don’t like reading your complaints about it so I will stop visiting this thread.

Very much like the viewers have stopped visiting S60. In case you haven't noticed, about half of the viewers already have already stopped tuning in.

>>
NBC's momentum was stopped cold at 10 p.m., when "Studio 60" (7.7 million, 3.2/8) was beaten by CBS' "CSI: Miami" (17.5 million, 5.9/15). ABC's "What About Brian" (6 million, 2.7/7) fell week-to-week.
<<

The military history of Wallach and the group's reaction to it was designed to show that people from the left really do admire and SUPPORT the military despite the current conflict in Iraq. ............ Really transparent. So corny. So warm and fuzzy. (and we're not supposed to notice, I suppose.)

Here's a real shocker for you ... there are people "from the left" serving in uniform right now ... there are people "from the left" serving in Iraq and Afganistan right now. There are people "from the left" who have served and died so you can make these "really transparent" statements from the safety of your computer keyboard. So what say we give this line of thought a rest, hey? :)