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......

Well, if you want to get technical, it was 1:00 a.m. when they presented Eli with all the information they gathered. You could tell this because the West Coast repeat of Studio 60 was airing on the TV behind Cal and Eli in the room. You know, if you want to get technical. :)

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? :)

You are absolutely correct. None of what you posted changed the fact that the OP was correct however...

I enjoy the show, anyone not a lib has to be able to watch liberal views on fictional TV. Hell thats where the ideas belong :)

You can't have it both ways. If you complain about "liberal Hollywood", you're not allowed to be surprised that a show that is centered around Hollywood behind the scenes has a liberal message coming from liberal characters.

If you dislike the show so much, stop watching.

OK, I will. Watched Monday's episode last night, deleted the show from my DVR's scheduled recording list this morning.

You can't have it both ways. If you complain about "liberal Hollywood", you're not allowed to be surprised that a show that is centered around Hollywood behind the scenes has a liberal message coming from liberal characters.


Excellent point.

Does anyone think there is a relation between the continued decline of S60 and the increase of audience for MNF on ESPN? This weeks game set a record for most households ever to watch a scheduled/unscheduled cable program If you look at the last few weeks of MNF:

(Courtesy of the Dallas Morning News sitting at my desk)
10/23: 11,807,000 homes (#1 all time on cable)
10/16: 10,804,000 homes (#4 all time scheduled event on cable)
9/25: 10,850,000 homes (#3 all time scheduled event on cable)
9/18: 9.809.000 homes (#5 all time scheduled event on cable)

#2 all time scheduled event on cable was 11,174,000 homes for the NAFTA debate on CNN back in 1993.

I love this show (just like the person above said about Sports Night, loved it too). However, I think I have watched maybe 1 show on Monday night. I DVR it and watch it later in the week, where the ratings breakdowns are based on that night's ratings... All because I am watching MNF instead. Maybe if they did move S60 to a different night it could find more audience... I'd still watch it delayed though because I hardly watch anything live anymore.

I'd be curious to see what the Live + 7 day ratings are for the show and if there are a lot of people out there like myself that watch S60 later in the week.

I finally watched this week's show last night. Although some of it was kind of contrived, they did finally get around to developing some of the characters a little. This was not the best episode so far, but I didn't think it was that bad.

I would still take Studio60 over most shows on television and am still hoping it somehow makes it to a second season.

You can't have it both ways. If you complain about "liberal Hollywood", you're not allowed to be surprised that a show that is centered around Hollywood behind the scenes has a liberal message coming from liberal characters.
I for one am not complaining about liberal Hollywood nor am I surprised that the show has liberal messages coming from liberal characters. What I AM saying is that it is being done through such contrived and unlikely gimmicks that it’s distracting from what are basically good story lines and characters.

You are absolutely correct. None of what you posted changed the fact that the OP was correct however...

No ... actually the OP completely mis-interpreted the episode as a result of his (apparent) particular bias. :)

Edit: Then again, perhaps the OP was just annoyed at the execution, not the thought behind the scene(s). ;)

So far I think the show is doing a pretty good job of being "fair and balenced" (and respectful) to all sides of the politicoreligious spectrum.

Edit#2: I shudder to think what would have happened if "The Internet" had existed back in the day when "MASH" and "All in the Family" were in first-run. ;) :D

It isn't close to balanced, and there's no reason it needs to be. The danger is that the many mini-messages squeezed in are going to overpower the drama. West Wing was a political show, so the politics could be seamlessly incorporated into the show. He needs to be much more tactful and discriminating with S60 because they'll stand out as out of place in this show.

He doesn't have to be more to the middle, just fill in the political blanks with his viewpoints when the drama calls for a political viewpoint. Don't establish a half-dozen political statements, then try to write an entertaining drama that incorporates them.

No ... actually the OP completely mis-interpreted the episode as a result of his (apparent) particular bias. :).

No, IMO, the OP had it right. Sorkin frequently interjects contrarian behavior and traits into his characters in order to show the audience that the character is well rounded or multifaceted or “fair” This is not confined to politics. He does in interpersonal relationships and other issues. It’s usually fairly obviously contrived to make the point, whatever that point may be.

This show is as balanced as the Al Franken show. (Or Michael Savage) But as mentioned, it does not need to be. Much like a sound Democratic platform its just fiction :)

This show is as balanced as the Al Franken show. (Or Michael Savage) But as mentioned, it does not need to be. Much like a sound Democratic platform its just fiction :)

Okay, that's two gratuitous shots against the evil liberals you've gotten in today, Frank. Feel better? Now give it a rest. :rolleyes:

Well, if you want to get technical, it was 1:00 a.m. when they presented Eli with all the information they gathered. You could tell this because the West Coast repeat of Studio 60 was airing on the TV behind Cal and Eli in the room. You know, if you want to get technical. :)

Well, if you want to get technical, the show is over at 1:00am PST, so it could not be airing and be 1am :)

No, IMO, the OP had it right. Sorkin frequently interjects contrarian behavior and traits into his characters in order to show the audience that the character is well rounded or multifaceted or “fair” This is not confined to politics. He does in interpersonal relationships and other issues. It’s usually fairly obviously contrived to make the point, whatever that point may be.

1) In opposition to the "Crazy Christians" theme, I find the "Harriet" character quite sympathetic and likeable ... "Crazy Christians" is over, "Harriet" is still there.

2) I completely hated the "Dad" right up until his "Your little brother is ..." outburst. I then understood his (apparent) reprehensible behavior and sympathized with his feelings.

It is a TV show, there's only 43 minutes ... it's not like Sorkin is resorting to three witches incanting "something wicked this way comes" or shipwrecking his characters on a wizard's island or any other lame dramatic "contrivences" ... :D

Okay, that's two gratuitous shots against the evil liberals you've gotten in today, Frank. Feel better? Now give it a rest. :rolleyes:

I, honestly and quite simply, can't believe those words. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

1) In opposition to the "Crazy Christians" theme, I find the "Harriet" character quite sympathetic and likeable ... "Crazy Christians" is over, "Harriet" is still there.

2) I completely hated the "Dad" right up until his "Your little brother is ..." outburst. I then understood his (apparent) reprehensible behavior and sympathized with his feelings.

It is a TV show, there's only 43 minutes ... it's not like Sorkin is resorting to three witches incanting "something wicked this way comes" or shipwrecking his characters on a wizard's island or any other lame dramatic "contrivences" ... :D

LOL, well, I didn’t say EVERYTHING was contrived, I just think that sometimes Sorkin doesn’t know when to leave well enough alone.

I, honestly and quite simply, can't believe those words. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I haven't done any such thing, and you know it. The referenced poster has taken two completely gratuitous shots at liberals today, and I'm tired of seeing it. If you can provide an example of a similar offense by me in this thread, by all means, do so. But, and as I've asked you before, do it by private message. Nobody here is the slightest bit interested in your little feud with me (and that includes me). Either grow up, or go elsewhere where that kind of behavior is tolerated.

Ding! Ding! :D :D

1) In opposition to the "Crazy Christians" theme, I find the "Harriet" character quite sympathetic and likeable ... "Crazy Christians" is over, "Harriet" is still there.

2) I completely hated the "Dad" right up until his "Your little brother is ..." outburst. I then understood his (apparent) reprehensible behavior and sympathized with his feelings.

It is a TV show, there's only 43 minutes ... it's not like Sorkin is resorting to three witches incanting "something wicked this way comes" or shipwrecking his characters on a wizard's island or any other lame dramatic "contrivences" ... :DI agree (I think ;) ). Sometimes in this thread I feel like I'm listening to one of the right wing talk shows. I guess people will see what they want to see in things but do they really believe everything in the show has to be about pandering? :rolleyes: Sorkin has become a target (earned, to a degree) , but some people need to take anything he does and try to make it into something it isn't. Then again, maybe we're all (on both sides) just operating under an election time malaise brought on by all the ridiculous, BS political advertising we're being bombarded with, night and day....

As far as the ep goes, it wasn't one of my favorites. Most of it seemed too forced and nothing really seemed to flow naturally. Perry was quite good as usual and I really liked the UN-show rant by Jack Rudolph. Otherwise, it was pretty flat for me.


ron

I haven't done any such thing, and you know it. The referenced poster has taken two completely gratuitous shots at liberals today, and I'm tired of seeing it. If you can provide an example of a similar offense by me in this thread, by all means, do so. But, and as I've asked you before, do it by private message. Nobody here is the slightest bit interested in your little feud with me (and that includes me). Either grow up, or go elsewhere where that kind of behavior is tolerated.

Your PM of threats and name-calling notwithstanding - I agree no one has any interest in any "feud" you perceive between us, especially me. I could easily provide examples of you making similar statements (nice touch adding "in this thread" to try to limit the evidence); hence my "pot-kettle" comment, pointing out some measure of obvious hypocrisy, which I thought was done gently enough.

Your last line says much - I said nothing similarly insulting. You like to attack and rant in the open, you simply don't like the response in the open. By the way - did you think of PM'ing Frank Cone as you suggest to me, or did you decide railing at him in the public forum was the proper course? You seem conflicted on how to deal with these things.

Sangs, I concur with your "Ding, Ding" and hope things get back on track. Apologies to those distracted by this.

I agree (I think ;) ).... Sorkin has become a target (earned, to a degree) , but some people need to take anything he does and try to make it into something it isn't...As far as the ep goes, it wasn't one of my favorites. Most of it seemed too forced and nothing really seemed to flow naturally. Perry was quite good as usual and I really liked the UN-show rant by Jack Rudolph. Otherwise, it was pretty flat for me.
ron

I think you answered your own complaint. Sorkin has been a target for a couple of reasons. Some for his politics being inserted everywhere, some for his rep as an incredibly talented writer and for his early years of West Wing.

To me, his problem is he is writing a show that was over-hyped, with way high expectations and is simply not in the same super-charged setting of the White House. It's tough to carry his West Wing themes into this behind-the-scenes show about TV. Most of us simply don't care enough about these characters so far and their situation is far less intriguing and important as West Wing. The good dialogue is still there and the snappy character interaction - but that's mostly it. Personally, I don't care about his politics unless he inserts them needlessly which disrupts the flow of the show. And the absurdity of some of the stories is just beyond the pale I think. This is far less satire than, say, 30 Rock, so it doesn't do well with dramatic plot stretches like some of those seen recently and documented above. In the end, it's often flat, as you say, and only occasionally good. Not a good balance and the ratings show it. I continue to watch, as the writing often intrigues - but oh those stories.

I can't help but wonder what we'd be thinking about "Studio 60" if it wasn't so overhyped before anybody even saw a frame. I remember reading during the Up Fronts coverage about Studio 60 this and Studio 60 that - the TV press had already crowned it as the greatest show in recent memory without even watching an episode. The initial press conference introducing the show was more of an inauguration than a presentation. If it had just been presented as a new show with great promise, would we feel differently? Because let's be honest here, no matter what way you lean, as far as shows go - new and old - Studio 60 is better than a lot of what currently airs. It hasn't been great, but put it up against a lot of other offerings and it comes up aces. At least in my eyes.

What's odd is that initially, they weren't sure it'd even be picked up. There was speculation that they wouldn't carry 2 shows about SNL and 30 Rock may get the nod. The pilot was well reviewed, but I think most of the hype and pressure came from NBC. At $3 million an episode, that's probably to be expected - they needed it to have big numbers.

It looks like it settled in close to 8 million viewers (if this past episode doesn't chase many away) and hopefully that will be enough. On another network, the cost vs ratings ratio would probably mean the end for S60 - but on NBC, they still need to fill their schedule. Even with the announced game show hour, they still have gaps.

They knew Monday night was less than ideal for this show, they should be tolerant of less than ideal ratings until an opportunity opens up at another time slot.

Okay, that's two gratuitous shots against the evil liberals you've gotten in today, Frank. Feel better? Now give it a rest. :rolleyes:
It's okay. I don't blame him. He's about to lose both houses of congress. The stress must be overwhelming. :D

I really liked the UN-show rant by Jack Rudolph.

Was it a bad sign that I was agreeing with everything Rudolph said? Picking up that UN show was a bad idea, both for the network (which is destined to get lousy ratings with it) and the show (which would fare much better on HBO). I hope they follow through and admit as much later on.

I can't help but wonder what we'd be thinking about "Studio 60" if it wasn't so overhyped before anybody even saw a frame.

That and the relatively excessive investment in both $$$ and reputation NBC put into this show make it hard to live up to the expectations. Personally, over-hyped or not, I simply find the stories at times absurd (given the premise) and at times simply not well told or uninteresting. The meager political issues of the "Crazy Christians" skit and other so-called political slants are minor and nothing at all compared to the real problems this show has. Bottom line, even without the media's pre-pilot-hype extravaganza, I think I'd still find it mediocre at best. I hoped for more.

Was it a bad sign that I was agreeing with everything Rudolph said? Picking up that UN show was a bad idea, both for the network (which is destined to get lousy ratings with it) and the show (which would fare much better on HBO).

Very true. Kind of takes the bloom off of Jordan McDeere's supposed "save the network" savvy doesn't it? Rudolph is over-played as corporate evil most of the time, but his business acumen seems on target.

I hope they follow through and admit as much later on.

That, I seriously doubt. But it would make for a nice turn.

Picking up that UN show was a bad idea, both for the network (which is destined to get lousy ratings with it) and the show (which would fare much better on HBO). I hope they follow through and admit as much later on.

Why would the show be better off on HBO? It doesn't seem that a show about the UN would need huge budget special effects, the ability to use adult language or the need to show nudity. What other advantages would HBO offer a show? On a network, a show can be watched by the enitre country -- on HBO only by subscribers.

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? :)

Do these people from the left that are serving in Iraq and Afganistan right now support (intellectually) what they are involved in actually doing?

No, IMO, the OP had it right. Sorkin frequently interjects contrarian behavior and traits into his characters in order to show the audience that the character is well rounded or multifaceted or “fair” This is not confined to politics. He does in interpersonal relationships and other issues. It’s usually fairly obviously contrived to make the point, whatever that point may be.

EXACTLY! Well said.

Do these people from the left that are serving in Iraq and Afganistan right now support (intellectually) what they are involved in actually doing?

You'd have to ask them. But when you're in the military, you do what they tell you to do and go where they tell you to go. If you speak out against the party line, you're slapped down pretty quick; if you're an officer, it's basically career suicide.

You'd have to ask them. But when you're in the military, you do what they tell you to do and go where they tell you to go. If you speak out against the party line, you're slapped down pretty quick; if you're an officer, it's basically career suicide.

... the same for non-comms ... not that I would have any personal knowledge of that or anything. ;)

'Our's is not to reason why ...'

You'd have to ask them. But when you're in the military, you do what they tell you to do and go where they tell you to go. If you speak out against the party line, you're slapped down pretty quick; if you're an officer, it's basically career suicide.

Well, then, are these people for it or against it or does it matter to them?

Well, then, are these people for it or against it or does it matter to them?

Again, you'd have to ask them. To get an honest answer, however, you'd probably have to ask them in confidence, or after their hitch is up.

Here's a question for you: what does this discussion have to do with 'Studio 60'? It's a bit OT for this thread, don't you think?

Well, then, are these people for it or against it or does it matter to them?

Oh give it a rest, you 'wingnuts. :mad:

Those people are fighting for the country, irrespective of their personal beliefs, and that's all that matters. Stop posturing like patriotism is your exclusive bastion. :mad:

Mods need to get these pseudo political comments outta here.

Quote:
"Mods need to get these pseudo political comments outta here."

Ditto for the writers of Studio 60.

Enough real world politics.

Save us the time of clean up and just get back on topic.

Quote:
"Mods need to get these pseudo political comments outta here."

Ditto for the writers of Studio 60.

There is a rule on this forum to keep political discussions off the table.

No such rule exists for TV. Stop watching the show if you don't like it, rather than dictating that such themes don't belong on TV. Otherwise Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter would be out of their jobs.

LOL ... "wingnuts" ... it's been awhile since I've "heard" that term ... ;) :D

Must have been two years ago. Elections seem to bring out the worst out of people. :o

lol...you have to see Ellen today to see what they gave Amanda Peet to "save the show". Was just channel surfing and happened to see it - but no screen capture.

lol...you have to see Ellen today to see what they gave Amanda Peet to "save the show". Was just channel surfing and happened to see it - but no screen capture.

What was that? A two-piece? ;)

What was that? A two-piece? ;)

Words can't begin to do it justice.....a photo or youtube clip is a must. I'm trying to see who carries it on the West Coast Feed.

Words can't begin to do it justice.....a photo or youtube clip is a must. I'm trying to see who carries it on the West Coast Feed.

Tease! :D

Ellen and Amanda were discussing that smart shows stuggle in ratings - and Studio 60 is struggling right now and all too often smart shows disappear - and as Amanda is pregnant and Ellen says the Paparazi will be following her around trying to photograph her and the child - and since the photos will show up in all the magazines and Fringe Prime TV shows - why not use that in attempt to garner viewers for the show, so Ellen had this special baby stroller made, which she says is the best gift they have EVER given anyone:

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2386/ellen00kk1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/8875/ellen07lv2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6134/ellen01cf7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Besides the flashing lights around the sign it also has a PA system that allows her to tell people to watch the show:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/926/ellen02co5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And you have to have a horn on the stroller to get attention:

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/8969/ellen03er0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And the Baby needs to wear something:

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7783/ellen04vc4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/5528/ellen05ln0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Was it a bad sign that I was agreeing with everything Rudolph said? Picking up that UN show was a bad idea, both for the network (which is destined to get lousy ratings with it) and the show (which would fare much better on HBO). I hope they follow through and admit as much later on.He was making some very valid points alright. The funny and somewhat ironic thing is that many of those comments could very easily apply to S60 :). But there has to be balance and that is why idealistic/visionary people need to be there to offset the bean counters IMO.


ron

I've watched and enjoyed (enough) each of the episodes. Despite feeling very disjointed and uneven, last week's episode had me feeling for the characters for the first time. That's a good sign.

As for the discussion here...so much of it is based on painting almost everyone with a broad political brush, which is pretty much the same thing for which people are criticizing Sorkin. Has it dawned on anyone that many in this country are somewhat moderate, leaning one way or the other? To discuss political issues as if all “liberals” feel one way and all “conservatives” another takes out any respect that should be shown to the majority of our mature thinking Americans.

The "Who's on First?" ignorance did not work at all for me for two reasons. One, it is not believable that white early baby boomers would not know of this skit. As radio and television entertainment evolved, Abbott and Costello were hugely popular, and they did that sketch (skit? how arrogant and shallow to care which it is called) on radio, in the movies, and in their television show. Second, not knowing “Who’s on First?” was delivered as if it was an ultimate sign of ignorance. How COULD they not know. It was as if they were less intellectual for not knowing this routine. If they didn’t know it (however unlikely), it would only be due to lack of exposure. It’s not as though they probably wouldn’t have other knowledge that folks on the set of Studio 60 did not. Also, the final “touching” moment when he told his dad he’d have to set the turntable to 78 (it was not an LP) was also condescending. Anyone who grew up with records would know to set the speed and discern a 78 from a 33 (unless, I guess, if you’re from Columbus, Ohio).

I guess that’s the problem I have with the attitude of those that think the show is too “smart” for middle America. To say it’s too smart is arrogant, with those in the “too smart” camp feeling superior because they “get it.” The condescension that is directed at the red state population is a turn off to the majority of individuals in this country, and it’s that attitude that has likely cost the Democrats the last two major elections.

This show will be a winner if it settles in to the character development. They have likeable actors and strong dialogue. However, the show needs to stop artificially creating situations so they can cram in another opportunity to show their positions on major political/social topics. It just needs to begin to flow. After all, it’s well-developed characters and human relationships and the various emotions that come with them that connect with most potential viewers.

I saw a report from Roger Friedman on Foxnews.com this morning that said a cancellation of the show was imminent. I sure hope that is not the case :(

NBC should try and move it to another time slot before just yanking out the rug!

Ellen is such a Manly Show !! :D :D

Last week was the best since the opener.
Eli W part gave us the fact that those that remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
The parents from midwest gave us the fact that not every body likes the same thing but respect for ALL positions is nessisary for relationships to work.
The nightclub scene was a great explanation about opportunity. Racism isn't always from without.
I hope that viewers realize that the sketches don't need to be funny, they are there to allow Sorkin to paint a picture about the personalities.

err make that those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Last week was the best since the opener.
Eli W part gave us the fact that those that remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
The parents from midwest gave us the fact that not every body likes the same thing but respect for ALL positions is nessisary for relationships to work.
The nightclub scene was a great explanation about opportunity. Racism isn't always from without.
I hope that viewers realize that the sketches don't need to be funny, they are there to allow Sorkin to paint a picture about the personalities.

Wow, three ABC After-school Specials all wrapped up in one show. ;)

The reasons you list to justify it being one of the best episodes are the same reasons I'd rank it the worst. If you want to be known as one of the smartest quality shows on television, don't write it as if the viewers are your 3rd grade class. People won't care much for "smart" writing if it is used to deliver an elementary, fortune-cookie message.

The "Who's on First?" ignorance did not work at all for me for two reasons. One, it is not believable that white early baby boomers would not know of this skit. As radio and television entertainment evolved, Abbott and Costello were hugely popular, and they did that sketch (skit? how arrogant and shallow to care which it is called) on radio, in the movies, and in their television show. Second, not knowing “Who’s on First?” was delivered as if it was an ultimate sign of ignorance. How COULD they not know.
Also everyone watching the show has to be familar with "Who's On First" otherwise they're also the butt of the joke. I'm sure a few teenagers and models weren't but two middle-aged people? Who knew what "The Jazz Singer" was? And recognized Art-Deco design?

Even worse, that was followed with explaining that the show is "written" to the female airheads who had just seen the show. Creating dumb ignorant characters to make jokes about them is the cheapest form of comedy.

"What's Operation Overload?" OK, maybe women forget those things. Gosh, this show makes me feel so smart. :rolleyes: That part of the show was kind of interesting.

At least the show acknowledged that the "White people and black people" sketch wasn't funny. For us. In case we didn't figure it out ourselves.

I saw a report from Roger Friedman on Foxnews.com this morning that said a cancellation of the show was imminent. I sure hope that is not the case :(

NBC should try and move it to another time slot before just yanking out the rug!

Complete speculation, but...

TV Notebook
'Studio 60’ Cancellation Iminent
By Roger Friedman Fox News (Fox 411) October 29, 2006

Here we go: despite receiving an order for three more episodes on Friday, the Aaron Sorkin NBC drama “Studio 60 on Sunset Strip” is about to be put out of its misery.

Cast members are already confiding in friends that the end is near. It’s likely NBC will pull the plug shortly I am told by insiders.

Last week, Studio 60 had 7.7 million viewers. Compare that with competing "CSI: Miami," with 17.5 million. That gap cannot be closed.

But ‘Studio 60’ has trouble internally at NBC, forget its intramural rivals. According to ratings stats, the “Saturday Night Live” behind the scenes soap opera loses almost half the viewers delivered to it a few minutes earlier by another new show, “Heroes,” which has become a surprise cult hit.

On Monday, ‘Heroes’ had 14.3 million viewers. The substantial drop off with 'Studio 60' is probably the last nail in its coffin. The order of the three extra episodes is considered by insiders to be a contractual move, and not one based on faith that they will ever be made or aired. The all important demo situation didn’t help: 'Heroes' had 15 percent of viewers aged 18-49. Studio 60 had 8 percent. The notion that 'Studio 60' is a big draw for NBC among desirables is, sadly, blown on those stats.

Sorkin and friends will argue that NBC has done something wrong, or that the audience isn’t smart enough. Alas, in this case, neither is true. 'Studio 60'—as I wrote on August 7th after viewing the pilot—is just a bad show. There’s nothing wrong with the acting, directing, or dialogue writing. But the premise is faulty. No one cares whether a bunch of over caffeinated, well off yuppies, some with expensive drug habits, put on a weekly comedy sketch show from Los Angeles.

Even worse: no one cares whether or not the people from the Bartlett White House puts on a comedy show. That’s what 'Studio 60' is, essentially: the "West Wing" annual talent show. There’s so much earnestness involved in this endeavour, you start to think that nuclear war will be declared if the 'Studio 60' staff doesn’t air some joke—usually one we don’t hear anyway. The whole thing just feels weighted down and frankly, not entertaining.

There is one winner to come out of 'Studio 60,' however: Matthew Perry. In this show he’s proven himself to be a star on his own separate from "Friends." His comedic timing and ability to ad lib, toss off lines, and give restrained physical reactions is what keeps 'Studio 60' even remotely interesting. We can only be hopeful that someone comes up with a great new show for him quickly—but a comedy that’s funny, not a drama that isn’t.

NBC will probably fill the lost 'Studio 60' timeslot with 'Deal-No Deal: The Next Generation,' or some such thing. So the losers here will be the audience, which is about to be pummelled by more reality and game shows. It’s too bad because around the dial there are good new dramas. Despite its heavy “thirtysomething” feel, “Brothers and Sisters” is worth keeping if only for Sally Field, Ron Rifkin and Rachel Griffiths. (But there a mistake was made, too: killing off patriarch Tom Skerritt in the first episode.)

Oh well: I hope Regis is warming up the holiday edition of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." We’re ready!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html

I've watched and enjoyed (enough) each of the episodes. Despite feeling very disjointed and uneven, last week's episode had me feeling for the characters for the first time. That's a good sign.

As for the discussion here...so much of it is based on painting almost everyone with a broad political brush, which is pretty much the same thing for which people are criticizing Sorkin. Has it dawned on anyone that many in this country are somewhat moderate, leaning one way or the other? To discuss political issues as if all “liberals” feel one way and all “conservatives” another takes out any respect that should be shown to the majority of our mature thinking Americans.

The "Who's on First?" ignorance did not work at all for me for two reasons. One, it is not believable that white early baby boomers would not know of this skit. As radio and television entertainment evolved, Abbott and Costello were hugely popular, and they did that sketch (skit? how arrogant and shallow to care which it is called) on radio, in the movies, and in their television show. Second, not knowing “Who’s on First?” was delivered as if it was an ultimate sign of ignorance. How COULD they not know. It was as if they were less intellectual for not knowing this routine. If they didn’t know it (however unlikely), it would only be due to lack of exposure. It’s not as though they probably wouldn’t have other knowledge that folks on the set of Studio 60 did not. Also, the final “touching” moment when he told his dad he’d have to set the turntable to 78 (it was not an LP) was also condescending. Anyone who grew up with records would know to set the speed and discern a 78 from a 33 (unless, I guess, if you’re from Columbus, Ohio).

I guess that’s the problem I have with the attitude of those that think the show is too “smart” for middle America. To say it’s too smart is arrogant, with those in the “too smart” camp feeling superior because they “get it.” The condescension that is directed at the red state population is a turn off to the majority of individuals in this country, and it’s that attitude that has likely cost the Democrats the last two major elections.

This show will be a winner if it settles in to the character development. They have likeable actors and strong dialogue. However, the show needs to stop artificially creating situations so they can cram in another opportunity to show their positions on major political/social topics. It just needs to begin to flow. After all, it’s well-developed characters and human relationships and the various emotions that come with them that connect with most potential viewers.

A well-written post with which I can strongly agree. It would be nice if this show stuck around for awhile because it is different and shows a little potential. Unfortunately, some showbiz people seem to be a little dizzy and a program about showbiz by showbiz is going to reflect some of these over simplified reactions and answers to the complications and difficulties of life.

The only thing that I would add to what you have said so well is that it was my impression that the 'parents' didn't even know who Abbott and Costello were. If so, I find that preposterous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay1952
Last week was the best since the opener.
Eli W part gave us the fact that those that remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
The parents from midwest gave us the fact that not every body likes the same thing but respect for ALL positions is nessisary for relationships to work.
The nightclub scene was a great explanation about opportunity. Racism isn't always from without.
I hope that viewers realize that the sketches don't need to be funny, they are there to allow Sorkin to paint a picture about the personalities.


Wow, three ABC After-school Specials all wrapped up in one show.

The reasons you list to justify it being one of the best episodes are the same reasons I'd rank it the worst. If you want to be known as one of the smartest quality shows on television, don't write it as if the viewers are your 3rd grade class. People won't care much for "smart" writing if it is used to deliver an elementary, fortune-cookie message.

CPanther95,
I just don't understand what you were expecting from this show. What were you expecting? It is sort of like "Sports Night" and "West Wing" The show is (as most Sorkin shows are) about everything and nothing. It uses the characters to explore many different avenues. If you think the show childish and think it disrespects the viewer I guess it is not your cup of tea. But I am curious, What did you hope the show would be about? (30 Rock?) or an inside look at late night TV?
I am not trying to make this personal or pick a fight, just trying to understand where you are coming from.

I loved Sports Night, but I don't think this comes close. I am enjoying S60, but the last episode was the worst of the 4 - and it was because of the little messages they're trying to get across and the forced way they manipulate the plot in order to squeeze them in. And the messages don't make you think about, or re-think, anything .... war heroes are good, black stereotypes are bad, blacklisting is bad... you may as well have some guy with polio show up so all the characters can talk about how they are anti-polio.

I still like the pacing of the show, and I'm not one that feels the sketches need to be funny (just don't show them) - but if they keep going out of their way to try and get these messages in that have no point to the overall story, then that's when I'll stop watching.

BTW - check out Battlestar Galactica if you want to see genuinely "smart" writing that tackles many issues and makes you think - and does so with the presumption that their audience is smart enough not to need to be hit over the head with it.

This is the reason the show will be cancelled.

Even the 50% that is remaining as fans can't agree on what is a good show or not.

If the fans can't figure it out, obviously neither can Sorkin.

I loved Sports Night, but I don't think this comes close. I am enjoying S60, but the last episode was the worst of the 4 - and it was because of the little messages they're trying to get across and the forced way they manipulate the plot in order to squeeze them in. And the messages don't make you think about, or re-think, anything .... war heroes are good, black stereotypes are bad, blacklisting is bad... you may as well have some guy with polio show up so all the characters can talk about how they are anti-polio.

...

The fallacy of your [generalization] objections is that you put yourself in the position of the characters receiving those lines in the show. Why do you have to think that the show's characters are talking to YOU through the other characters, and mocking YOUR intelligence? Why can't you just take those lines as those said by one character to the other, regardless of their merits? :rolleyes:

Maybe you would enjoy the show if you don't consider that every character is talking to you rather than the other characters.

So I guess since Friday Night Lights is on in place of Studio 60 is the sign that it's over eh?

The fallacy of your [generalization] objections is that you put yourself in the position of the characters receiving those lines in the show. Why do you have to think that the show's characters are talking to YOU through the other characters, and mocking YOUR intelligence? Why can't you just take those lines as those said by one character to the other, regardless of their merits? :rolleyes:

Maybe you would enjoy the show if you don't consider that every character is talking to you rather than the other characters.

Huh?

The fallacy of your argument is you are making crap up out of thin air instead of actually responding to anything specific. Why am I not surprised that you don't find the show insults your intelligence? :rolleyes:

I hate to see this canceled because it is the only new show I watch on a regular bases. The trumping that CSI is handing Studio 60 probably means we will just see more crime dramas next year. I'm sick of all the crime dramas. For some reason though, a lot of poeple in this country love watching people murdered and then see how the crime is solved. Guess it gives them a false hope that all real crimes will be solved and in 45 minutes as well. Sorry for the rant. It's just frustrating because this is the second year in a row were the shows I put an effort into watching and enjoy get canned. Last year it was Invasion and Commander in Chief. Oh well, the only thing left that I watch now is Battlestar Galactica and older shows that originally aired years ago like Star Trek Enterprise on HDNet.

So I guess since Friday Night Lights is on in place of Studio 60 is the sign that it's over eh?Not necessarily. A lot of shows during the past week have been reruns (perhaps saving new episodes for sweeps). It could be that the original plan was to show a repeat of S60 and instead they decided to show a new FNL...

So I guess since Friday Night Lights is on in place of Studio 60 is the sign that it's over eh?

It's pretty obvious its over - but they have a strong lead in with Heros and are trying to see if they can get some interest for Friday Night Lights with the strong lead in - as FNL would probably match up better with demos that appeal to Heros than with S60, which might actually have a better chance on Friday anyway - though the costs will be too expensive for the night.

Huh?

The fallacy of your argument is you are making crap up out of thin air instead of actually responding to anything specific. Why am I not surprised that you don't find the show insults your intelligence? :rolleyes:

WTF, mate? I guess you guys are in the "take offence to the most trivial things" mode lately. An idiot on a TV show says something shallow to his parents on a TV show, and you [again, a generalization] feel insulted. I wonder how many times your intelligence is insulted everyday even though not directed at you. I found those scenes on S60 last week to be pretty superficial, but I didn't get offended.

Please don't bother to reply.

Again, who said I was offended? The fact that they were superficial is the problem (as you just admitted) not that they were offensive or insulting. "Superficial" and "shallow" doesn't make for a real intriguing drama IMO. For some reason you got your panties in a bunch because I said that if these superficial exchanges increase to the detriment of the drama, I'd stop watching. Not sure why that is unreasonable.

If I want mental chewing gum, I'll watch Deal or No Deal.

I can't help but wonder what we'd be thinking about "Studio 60" if it wasn't so overhyped before anybody even saw a frame.
I don't pay attention to any network promos or advertising. The only reason I watched the pilot (the rerun of the pilot actually) was because people were raving about it here. The pilot really made it seem like a seriously promising show that would have the guts to show us how a network operates behind the scenes.

I'm very surprised how quickly the show has only brushed on those topics and instead has gone from painfully unfunny comedy to, as TeeJay1952 said, a collection of heartwarming ABC After-school Specials. How can anyone call this a smart edgy show after this last episode?

CPanther gets quoted again:
"............ the last episode was the worst of the 4 - and it was because of the little messages they're trying to get across and the forced way they manipulate the plot in order to squeeze them in."

I don't know that the last episode was the worst, but the rest of the statement says what I don't like about the show. Good job.

Maybe they have gotten it all out of their system by now and can just go ahead and concentrate on making a good program. If it wasn't in HD, I wouldn't be giving it the time of day.

I actually don't mind the "messages" but all of them are substantial enough to warrant the bulk of an episode vice the squeeze play that was put on.

I loved Sports Night, but I don't think this comes close. I am enjoying S60, but the last episode was the worst of the 4 - and it was because of the little messages they're trying to get across and the forced way they manipulate the plot in order to squeeze them in. And the messages don't make you think about, or re-think, anything .... war heroes are good, black stereotypes are bad, blacklisting is bad... you may as well have some guy with polio show up so all the characters can talk about how they are anti-polio.

I still like the pacing of the show, and I'm not one that feels the sketches need to be funny (just don't show them) - but if they keep going out of their way to try and get these messages in that have no point to the overall story, then that's when I'll stop watching.

BTW - check out Battlestar Galactica if you want to see genuinely "smart" writing that tackles many issues and makes you think - and does so with the presumption that their audience is smart enough not to need to be hit over the head with it.


I guess I'm in the minority here, but I actually like the show. Yes, not all of the skits are funny, but what sketch comedy show is? I like the style and speed of the show. It really is different from most other shows that i watch, serialized dramas like 24/Prison Break or predictable procedural shows like House/CSI...

It's not always about how you present the issue but how people relate to the issue. I know you all are calling it the "After School Special" episode (which is dating yourselves, I'm 28 and I'm on the tail end of the afterschool special generation, someone who is 25 doesn't even know what that means LOL) but I could relate to DL's character, what he was trying to accomplish and I have experienced some of the same difficulties from polar opposite examples of people being successful by playing against tired viewpoints in my communities. I showed it to a gathering of my friends before football yesterday and they all saw the same qualities in it and are now going to check it out, even though its probably too late

I am an avid BSG fan and I hear what you're saying, but sci-fi dramas seem to have a leadway on smart topics because the fantasy element makes them less threating. If we have differences between klingons and romulans or "good" mutants and "bad" mutants, its less preachy or touchy than humans that have racial, religious, or class issues...

That's my two cents... no matter what the reason, enjoy studio 60 while it's still here... :-)

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I actually like the show.

I don't think you're in the minority in this thread. Most of us are among the 7 or 8 million people tuning in. Even my complaints with the last episode are in comparison to the first 3 episodes of S60 - not to the much greater amount of crap TV that's out there.

So what will be cancelled first - the UN show on NBS or S60?

As for the parents not knowing Who's On First - I knew people that age who grew up in fundamentalist religious families who did not go to movies and did not have a TV at home (no TBN in those days). There was no cable, satellite, DVDs, VCRs, internet etc. I'm not talking about the Amish, but people who demonised the entertainment industry as a whole, partially because of the huge social changes that occurred in the 60s.

Hereos is not a good lead-in for S60 as they have mismatched audiences. Les Moonves picked up the disgusting reality show that NBS passed on, maybe he can pick up S60 for Showtime. The S&P guy could be cursing out everyone on the show. Now that would be more like real life TV.

Even my complaints with the last episode are in comparison to the first 3 episodes of S60 - not to the much greater amount of crap TV that's out there.

Sigh, the worst crap i've seen this year in HD was watching the panthers lay down last night to the cowboys but i guess thats for a different forum...

I didn't think that the parents not knowing "Who's on First?" was designed to make them seem ignorant, as much as it was intended to show the tremendous gulf between their interests and the interests of their son, the writer. They really had no knowledge of their son's world at all.

As familiar as that routine is to everyone here, you have to remember that, as a group, we place more value on entertainment than most people. If we didn't, we wouldn't be in this forum.

Where I live, it wouldn't be unheard of for people of the parents age to be unfamiliar with "Who's on First?". It would be a bit unusual, but not unheard of.

I don't think you're in the minority in this thread. Most of us are among the 7 or 8 million people tuning in. Even my complaints with the last episode are in comparison to the first 3 episodes of S60 - not to the much greater amount of crap TV that's out there.

I like the show too and would hate to see it go....is it perfect -- NO!! Contrived --YES!! Would I prefer to STILL be watching West Wing --YES!!! But for crissakes, soon we are going to have CSI -- Robbinsville!!! Or...Dancing with the Dallas Cheerleaders!!! :eek:

Dancing with the Dallas Cheerleaders? I think you've got something there ! Perfect for NBC 8-9p.

I didn't think that the parents not knowing "Who's on First?" was designed to make them seem ignorant, as much as it was intended to show the tremendous gulf between their interests and the interests of their son, the writer. They really had no knowledge of their son's world at all.
If that was the point then surely they could have written the scene without making his parents look like they had lived in a hole their entire lives. Instead we got yet another exchange that made people who don't work in the entertainment industry seem like ignorant fools.

My old man would have said something like, "Abbott and Costello? Not funny then, not funny now. Sad how you kids are lionizing these old two-bit hacks. Guess your generation ran out of f-word jokes."

IBut for crissakes, soon we are going to have .... Dancing with the Dallas Cheerleaders!!! :eek:

Gee, you say that like it's a bad thing. ;) :cool:

Save the Cheerleader
Save the Mathew Perry*






















*CPanther, you would have appreciated this....they were talking about the over-stated claims of cancellation on Elliot in the Morning (DC101) and someone brought up this catchy tag-line

Dancing with the Dallas Cheerleaders? I think you've got something there ! Perfect for NBC 8-9p.

...but not for NBS!!!! ;)

So I guess since Friday Night Lights is on in place of Studio 60 is the sign that it's over eh?

I'm assuming a new S60 (and new The Office this passed Thursday) were held off because NBC didn't want them possibly running vs. a World Series game. Wouldn't Game 7 have been Monday?

I'm assuming a new S60 (and new The Office this passed Thursday) were held off because NBC didn't want them possibly running vs. a World Series game. Wouldn't Game 7 have been Monday?
No, it would have been Sunday night.

There's a new S60 scheduled for this coming Monday (11/06)

Guess the fans (the minority on this thread) are fine for now. Sweet!

http://www.tv.com/story/6990.html

Studio 60 lives
By Colin Mahan - TV.com
October 31, 2006 at 03:26:00 PM | more stories by this author

NBC says it still likes Aaron Sorkin drama.

The reports of Studio 60's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Studio 60 lives.

Yesterday, rumors swirled that NBC's expensive drama Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was headed for the scrap heap. Despite the fact that NBC had ordered three more episodes of the show, cast members were reportedly telling friends the show was near its end.

Now, NBC has refuted that story, saying the show is still profitable and that the network will give it at least a little while longer. Media Daily News says NBC is frustrated by the decline of Studio 60's ratings, but that the show brings in affluent viewers that advertisers care about. Therefore, the 7.7 million viewers the show earned last week is OK--for now.

Studio 60 is the brainchild of Aaron Sorkin, creator of West Wing. The show tells the story of a Saturday Night Live-type late-night sketch comedy show. The premiere was solid, with 12 million viewers, but the show has slipped in successive weeks. Last night, NBC ran an episode of Friday Night Lights in Studio 60's time slot, and Lights scored more viewers than Studio.

Despite network assurances, if Studio 60 continues to slip, it may face cancellation. NBC quickly wrapped production on Kidnapped after it produced lower-than-expected results for the network.

When do sweeps start?

The reports of Studio 60's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Studio 60 lives.

Nah. I bet the executioner accidentally dropped the syringe with the lethal dose and broke it just prior to injection. They're probably racing over to the House set on Fox to get a new, more potent injection for future/soon delivery.

When do sweeps start?

Tomorrow

Despite network assurances, if Studio 60 continues to slip, it may face cancellation. NBC quickly wrapped production on Kidnapped after it produced lower-than-expected results for the network.

What I can't seem to find the answer to is referenced in that last sentence. NBC has said it will put the remaining 8 episodes of 'Kidnapped' on their web site, but the above article says it has "quickly wrapped production". I'm assuming they have a few episodes finished and ready, but all 8....?? It's just been a couple of weeks since NBC announced they had given it a half-season order of 13 episodes, but one would think that the writers would have to re-visit the whole shebang to change things enough to wrap in 13 episodes instead of the 22 they undoubtedly planned for.

Now, finally, the show might have found its stride.

Good episode. Finally looking forward to seeing the next episode more than I was the previous one.

Two shows in a row that are to be continued. Kinda silly if you ask me. They stated the same problem 3 times. Once to introduce us to it, a second time to actually show us the events that transpired and a third time to sum it all up before wacking us with a "To be continued..."

Getting tired of the Christian bashing too.

I originally agreed about the Christian bashing tone, Chet.

But now it seems to me it is more a subtle Christian bashing bashing. But to each his own.

What? No one offended this week?

What? No one offended this week?

Hard for one to be offended when they've stopped watching. :D (I DVRed it, will be watching later.)

What? No one offended this week?

They received their "Meds" this week, so they'll be mellow for awhile yet? ;)

I originally agreed about the Christian bashing tone, Chet.

But now it seems to me it is more a subtle Christian bashing bashing. But to each his own.

Seems the Christians are winning in the Sorkin world as of last night. (John Goodman)

Please :rolleyes:. This one was "To be continued..." I'm sure the judge will have mercy on him and cast member will make it back in time for the skit that will never be showed to us. Goodman is just "having fun" with him.

Remember, we still haven't heard WHY he was speeding so fast through Nevada.

Please :rolleyes:. This one was "To be continued..." I'm sure the judge will have mercy on him and cast member will make it back in time for the skit that will never be showed to us. Goodman is just "having fun" with him.

Remember, we still haven't heard WHY he was speeding so fast through Nevada.

Does it bother you that much to have a main character who is a devote Christian (and a Southern Baptist at that) on a show that is written by a secular progressive? Hey, lighten up, it is just a TV show.

I thought the network president was really over the top this week. Did everything but twirl his mustache.
" I have a black American Express good for 1 million dollars." sounded more like Dr Evil.
Glad y'all enjoyed this week. Heros and Studio 60 make for a great Monday night.

I was looking forward to tonight's show, but I was very disappointed. John Goodman was the only redeeming quality. They have REALLY got to find some theme to tie this show together other than Christian bashing. I say that not because the Christian bashing offends me, but because it has become boring. Move on already.

...... But now it seems to me it is more a subtle Christian bashing bashing. But to each his own.Totally agree with this. Seems to me Sorkin is just exploring the dynamics of the situation and having some fun with it. I know some people want to believe that he's trying to promote an agenda but I just don't see it that way.

This was the first ep that the Tom Jeter character really became more interesting to me (especially after last week where the whole thing with the parents just seemed off). And the Simon Stiles character continues to grow on me. Same with Jack Rudolph who seems to have finally shown hints of being more than a one dimensional Suit. Yeah, the whole thing at the jail is way over the top and not realistic, but it is entertaining. Of course, Goodman seems to have that effect on pretty much everything he does. Where the last ep seemed very disjointed and had no flow, last night's was just the opposite to me. Probably my favorite ep so far.


ron

Same with Jack Rudolph who seems to have finally shown hints of being more than a one dimensional Suit. Yeah, the whole thing at the jail is way over the top and not realistic, but it is entertaining.

I have known some broadcasting suits who thought by flashing a credit card with a high limit they could get what they wanted, no matter what it was. Jack is actually not too far off the mark.

Not bad - I was glad they got out of the studio and/or cast party settings. I'd watch Goodman pick his nose for a 1/2 hour, I find him that entertaining. But my favorite lines were the rapid fire, and clearly spoken, "shots" at CSI: Miami, which as we know has been clobbering Studio in the head-to-heads ratings. Good sense of humor if it was written and filmed following the first couple weeks of ratings.

I was looking forward to tonight's show, but I was very disappointed. John Goodman was the only redeeming quality. They have REALLY got to find some theme to tie this show together other than Christian bashing. I say that not because the Christian bashing offends me, but because it has become boring. Move on already.

This is the way that I see it, too. The people that create our entertainment really do have some awful hangups.

Humm ... does anyone else suspect that the whole "Nevada" plot is just a visualization of the "alternate show with in the show?"

I also thought this was a much improved outing. It made me want to see the conclusion, though I suspect it is pretty predictable. As for the Jack Rudolph character, I think they are unsure how to play him. I seriously doubt he (in his official position) would have impulsively jetted off to Nevada at the last minute (big $$$ sponsor notwithstanding) to appear in Court Podunk to rescue a minor cast member for a skit. That would have been delegated. I didn't have as much problem with his flashing the high $$ limit Amex card, as that sounds like the kind of ego thing he may well do.

As for the Christian bashing - I think it started out that way in typical Sorkin fashion, but has evolved cleverly through the use of the Paulson character and her part in the show and how it can conflict with her personal beliefs. Her dialogue with Perry on this stuff is Sorkinesque to be sure. An altogether better show, but far too little, too late IMO, to save it.

I thought the concept of the sketch they were writing was pretty funny, actually. But wasn't that done before, maybe in History of the World by Mel Brooks? I remember a scene, possibly the Last Supper, where somebody would say "Jesus Christ!" and the actor playing Jesus would turn and say "What?". And then they did it over and over. Am I imagining this?

I thought the concept of the sketch they were writing was pretty funny, actually. But wasn't that done before, maybe in History of the World by Mel Brooks? I remember a scene, possibly the Last Supper, where somebody would say "Jesus Christ!" and the actor playing Jesus would turn and say "What?". And then they did it over and over. Am I imagining this?

Ah, that was a funny movie. I loved the Madeline Kahn line:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empress Nympho: Say Bob, do I have any openings that this man might fit? :D

i don't really get what the guy from wings' job is. amanda peete is the president of the network right? and he is her boss? does he just work for NBS or is he part of the larger corporation (like GE).

i don't really get what the guy from wings' job is. amanda peete is the president of the network right? and he is her boss? does he just work for NBS or is he part of the larger corporation (like GE).
Jordan's the President of NBS and Jack is the Chairman of the Board...

I think it's more akin to Peet being in charge of programming, Weber being president of the network, Asner being CEO of the whole corporation.

Kevin Reilly> Jeff Zucker> Jeffrey Immelt

I think it's more akin to Peet being in charge of programming, Weber being president of the network, Asner being CEO of the whole corporation.

Kevin Reilly> Jeff Zucker> Jeffrey Immelt

Thanks, that's definitely how it is being played. Their job titles kind of threw me off.

I actually don't think you could put $1MM bail on the Centurion card, but I found it amusing. I'm hoping I don't ever have to try :-)

I think it's more akin to Peet being in charge of programming, Weber being president of the network, Asner being CEO of the whole corporation.Except that Jordan's title is President and Jack's is Chairman...

Except that Jordan's title is President and Jack's is Chairman...


yeah, that's what i find strange. usually a chairman of the board wouldn't be involved in day-to-day operations like jack is. maybe he is chairman of nbs rather than chairman of the board. either way they seem to have job functions that don't necessarily fit with the traditional roles of their titles. some companies are like that though. the president could be functionally the head of programming while the chairman is the head of the division (i.e., NBS) and the ceo is the head of the overarching company.

I actually don't think you could put $1MM bail on the Centurion card, but I found it amusing. I'm hoping I don't ever have to try :-)

Actually, you can. The "black Amex card" was an old urban legend years ago that went along the lines that there were a few VERY rich/powerful people who were given this special card which had virtually no limit. At the time, it wasn't actually true - it was really urban legend. However, Amex had the good marketing sense to realize it was a perfect niche market for them and they actually created such a card. It is given out very judiciously and has nearly no limit. I recall reading once that someone who had one bought a Bentley with it, no questions asked. It does exist, it's just not likely that any of us will ever see one. I recall getting my invite to get the Amex Platinum card which I kept for a few years. The annual fee was (then) $300 per year. If I remember, the black card was $2500 per year - just to have it.

My wife and I thought this was one of their best shows. Absolutely enjoyable. And being evangelical Christians, we are probably in the minority that 1: watch this show and 2: think that the portrayal is one of the best to come from a TV show. It's a great balance of showing her beliefs in an intelligent way and still portraying the non-Christian side.

Favorite line last night (paraphrasing)

Jordan: OK, I have abandonment issues.
Danny: OK, I have to go.

:D :D


tim

Actually, you can. The "black Amex card" was an old urban legend years ago that went along the lines that there were a few VERY rich/powerful people who were given this special card which had virtually no limit. At the time, it wasn't actually true - it was really urban legend. However, Amex had the good marketing sense to realize it was a perfect niche market for them and they actually created such a card. It is given out very judiciously and has nearly no limit. I recall reading once that someone who had one bought a Bentley with it, no questions asked. It does exist, it's just not likely that any of us will ever see one. I recall getting my invite to get the Amex Platinum card which I kept for a few years. The annual fee was (then) $300 per year. If I remember, the black card was $2500 per year - just to have it.

I have the card. I don't think I could put $1MM bail on it, although I agree that there isn't much I couldn't put on it. You are correct that it is $2500 per year. I'm surprised to hear you say that nobody here would see one. With some of the A/V stuff discussed in the hardware forums, I would think there would be quite a few of us who have one here, let alone see one.

It's about time a show about a comedy show was actually funny in parts. This was my favorite show of the series thus far because it finally made the premise behind the show believable.

I have known some broadcasting suits who thought by flashing a credit card with a high limit they could get what they wanted, no matter what it was. Jack is actually not too far off the mark.

How times have changed. I did it with as many hundreds as I could carry when working as a Unit Manager for the Network Sporting events - and it did work then - though I never had an oportunity to try it in a situation like that - and probably would not have even if given the chance.

When the Platnum AMEX came out, I actually had a waitress ask me if my Silver AMEX was as good as the Gold AMEX one :(

These days, J6P has no idea what a Centurion Black AMEX does - or that it even exists as most have never even seen or heard of one - so it was stupid that they even put it in this episode.

And on another note, are they showing these episodes out of order of how they were shot?

Actually, you can. The "black Amex card" was an old urban legend years ago that went along the lines that there were a few VERY rich/powerful people who were given this special card which had virtually no limit. At the time, it wasn't actually true - it was really urban legend. However, Amex had the good marketing sense to realize it was a perfect niche market for them and they actually created such a card. It is given out very judiciously and has nearly no limit. I recall reading once that someone who had one bought a Bentley with it, no questions asked. It does exist, it's just not likely that any of us will ever see one. I recall getting my invite to get the Amex Platinum card which I kept for a few years. The annual fee was (then) $300 per year. If I remember, the black card was $2500 per year - just to have it.

No, first you have to charge $150,00 with AMEX a year to be invited to apply for it.

For the group of Charter Members that were asked and were the "beta testers", we were given the an annual fee of $1,000.

After they decided to roll it out past the test, they increased the annual fee to $2,500, but allowed the beta testers to continue at $1,000.

And quite frankly, all American Express cards have no spending limits (providing you qualify) - so that really isn't the appeal of it.

And quite frankly, all American Express cards have no spending limits (providing you qualify) - so that really isn't the appeal of it.
Sort of. This, according to the AMEX web site:

The American Express® Card has no preset spending limit which gives you purchasing power that adjusts with your use of the card. No preset spending limit does not mean unlimited spending. Your purchases are approved based on a variety of factors including current spending patterns, your payment history, credit record, and financial resources known to us.

So, you can't just one day up and charge a Hummer H1 on your Platinum AMEX. At the very least, it's gonna require a phone call to approve it. You have to work your way up to that level over time.

The general gyst of the black card is that you've already proven you are financially able to pay for just about anything you might want. That's why they offer it to you in the first place. Therefore, you really can charge anything you want with it, no questions asked. So, while you could get to that level with another AMEX card, you're already there when the black card is in your wallet. Therefore, a true "no limit" really is the appeal of it.

No, first you have to charge $150,00 with AMEX a year to be invited to apply for it.

For the group of Charter Members that were asked and were the "beta testers", we were given the an annual fee of $1,000.

After they decided to roll it out past the test, they increased the annual fee to $2,500, but allowed the beta testers to continue at $1,000.

And quite frankly, all American Express cards have no spending limits (providing you qualify) - so that really isn't the appeal of it.

It's $250,000 per year, not $150,000.
The rest is all absolutely correct.

The general gyst of the black card is that you've already proven you are financially able to pay for just about anything you might want. That's why they offer it to you in the first place. Therefore, you really can charge anything you want with it, no questions asked. So, while you could get to that level with another AMEX card, you're already there when the black card is in your wallet. Therefore, a true "no limit" really is the appeal of it.

Well, your last two sentences sort of contradict each other. When you get the black card, you already have another Amex card that is set up such that there would be virtually no limit. It doesn't change by getting the black card, and that's really not the appeal of it at all. The "no limit" feature is the cause, not the effect.

The appeal is the other perks, such as the airline gold elite status, the hotel elite status, ability to cut lines at Cheesecake Factory, and the fact that it's made of titanium (not necessarily in that order).

...I'm surprised to hear you say that nobody here would see one. With some of the A/V stuff discussed in the hardware forums, I would think there would be quite a few of us who have one here, let alone see one....It's $250,000 per year...

Asked and answered. Maybe you remain surprised that "quite a few of us" don't have one, but I would be surprised that so many of us spend $250k/yr on Amex unless we are making business purchases with it. I'm sure there is some contingent here, but certainly not "quite a few", IMHO.

As for my lowly Platinum card - I agree - the value was never the $$$ limit, but the perks for travel upgrades and even private jet evacuation if necessary when overseas and taken ill.

No, first you have to charge $150,00 with AMEX a year...

"No" to what exactly? All I said was it was given out judiciously, and it is - (generally based on yearly spending, among other things). That starts at the Platinum card level (yearly spending requirement for invite) and continues upward.

Thread drift royale... Is it true what they say, that AMEX cards (especially the super duper, high end, ultra special "black" cards) exist solely for status seekers to whom image is everything? Damn, I really wish I had one. I'm such a bottom feeding nobody :(


ron

How times have changed. I did it with as many hundreds as I could carry when working as a Unit Manager for the Network Sporting events - and it did work then - though I never had an oportunity to try it in a situation like that - and probably would not have even if given the chance.

When the Platnum AMEX came out, I actually had a waitress ask me if my Silver AMEX was as good as the Gold AMEX one :(

These days, J6P has no idea what a Centurion Black AMEX does - or that it even exists as most have never even seen or heard of one - so it was stupid that they even put it in this episode.

And on another note, are they showing these episodes out of order of how they were shot?
this show isn't for J6P and they seem to play up the fact that it's not.

Thread drift royale... Is it true what they say, that AMEX cards (especially the super duper, high end, ultra special "black" cards) exist solely for status seekers to whom image is everything? Damn, I really wish I had one. I'm such a bottom feeding nobody :(


ron

This is an excellent debate point, and it is debated endlessly on forums such as flyertalk. It's hard to argue against it, especially since many of the old perks have been removed (although all of the ones I listed are still there). There does come a point when it pays for itself, and you need to travel quite a bit to reach that point. However, my feeling is that it is definitely true that many (if not most) of the people who have one do not reach that point.

I'm also one of the few people who have one who will readily admit that although I do not believe that image is everything, I believe that status has a value in business in certain situations. I believe in the "right place, right time" theory, and in having as many tools for as many different types of situations as possible. That's why I say that if you can afford it (and I claim that if you qualify for it, you can afford it), it's a good thing to have.

As a humorous aside, it's a lot of fun to watch the reactions of merchants when they don't know what it is (especially since they started making them out of titanium). I've come up with a list of responses to the question of, "What is this?" such as:

"Oh, mine turns black when I'm over my limit, doesn't yours?"

or

"They only give the black ones out to people with really bad credit."

Etc.

i don't believe you really have one. please post the account number and expiration date as evidence. hmm, might need that little security number too.

i don't believe you really have one. please post the account number and expiration date as evidence. hmm, might need that little security number too.

Billing address, last four of your social, and date of birth too, please.

Sort of. This, according to the AMEX web site:



So, you can't just one day up and charge a Hummer H1 on your Platinum AMEX. At the very least, it's gonna require a phone call to approve it. You have to work your way up to that level over time.

The general gyst of the black card is that you've already proven you are financially able to pay for just about anything you might want. That's why they offer it to you in the first place. Therefore, you really can charge anything you want with it, no questions asked. So, while you could get to that level with another AMEX card, you're already there when the black card is in your wallet. Therefore, a true "no limit" really is the appeal of it.

Again, I assure you that all cards have the same authorization procedure - as I know from first hand experience.


It's $250,000 per year, not $150,000.
The rest is all absolutely correct.

Then they have moved it up since they gave it to the Charter Members about 5 years ago.

Not surprising - but once you have it, you can renew it as long as you want.

That starts at the Platinum card level (yearly spending requirement for invite) and continues upward.

When the Platinum card was introduced ions ago - it also was invite only - and annual spending of $50k was required, iirc. I have no idea where that falls today - and I don't think the requirements were kept very high for Platinum.


The appeal is the other perks, such as the airline gold elite status, the hotel elite status, ability to cut lines at Cheesecake Factory, and the fact that it's made of titanium (not necessarily in that order).

Yes, its best for people who travel. That is really its key appeal - unless you want to impress a waiter or waitress - who will wonder if it's as good as a gold AMEX :D

Anyway, the upgrades to first on airlines and hotel upgrades are the key to the benefits, from my point of view.

this show isn't for J6P and they seem to play up the fact that it's not.

Again, as shown in this thread, most people have no idea that the Black Centurion card even exists - and I know many high up in Broadcasting that have no idea that it exists, so it really doesnt help to throw out a reference to something that 99.999% of the population have never heard of - or have a concept what it denotes.

Write like that - over the heads of an audience - and you can be sure your show will be cancelled for lack of an audience.

...so it really doesnt help to throw out a reference to something that 99.999% of the population have never heard of - or have a concept what it denotes. Write like that - over the heads of an audience - and you can be sure your show will be cancelled for lack of an audience.

Well, they get the double whammy then, bcz IMO, they did exactly the opposite a week or so ago. Recall that older couple who were so out of touch that they never heard of Abbott & Costello and what is arguably the funniest and most famous comedy routine ever presented: Who's On First. Unbelievable. I think we're back in that 99.99% group again.

Again, as shown in this thread, most people have no idea that the Black Centurion card even exists - and I know many high up in Broadcasting that have no idea that it exists, so it really doesnt help to throw out a reference to something that 99.999% of the population have never heard of - or have a concept what it denotes.

Write like that - over the heads of an audience - and you can be sure your show will be cancelled for lack of an audience.

Even if it's true that 99.999% haven't heard of it, they may get curious from the reference, and find online that it's true. It could create buzz just by people asking their friends and co-workers about it, or even posting to a message board. It will undoubtably come up that it was on Studio 60, and voila!

Product Placement? :)

Even if it's true that 99.999% haven't heard of it, they may get curious from the reference, and find online that it's true. It could create buzz just by people asking their friends and co-workers about it, or even posting to a message board. It will undoubtably come up that it was on Studio 60, and voila!

The fact that you have to be invited to get it after what appears now as $250,000 in charges on your AMEX a year, that leaves it that no one can get it that calls and those with those kind of charge levels have been contacted already.

Well, they get the double whammy then, bcz IMO, they did exactly the opposite a week or so ago. Recall that older couple who were so out of touch that they never heard of Abbott & Costello and what is arguably the funniest and most famous comedy routine ever presented: Who's On First. Unbelievable. I think we're back in that 99.99% group again.

If you think that 99.99% of the population has never heard of the A&C bit, I can assure you are dreaming.

The fact that you have to be invited to get it after what appears now as $250,000 in charges on your AMEX a year, that leaves it that no one can get it that calls and those with those kind of charge levels have been contacted already.

My point was it could be used to create buzz for the show, not the card.

Again, as shown in this thread, most people have no idea that the Black Centurion card even exists - and I know many high up in Broadcasting that have no idea that it exists, so it really doesnt help to throw out a reference to something that 99.999% of the population have never heard of - or have a concept what it denotes.

Write like that - over the heads of an audience - and you can be sure your show will be cancelled for lack of an audience.
i knew what it was and i have absolutely no hope of ever dreaming of having one of those cards. i don't think the reference was too far over any viewer's heads because he explained what it was if i remember right. or maybe i just knew because it is not really that obscure knowledge.

j6p doesn't watch this show, so they don't need to dumb it down for them. people who are interested in the world of tv production and people who are into aaron sorkin watch this show. the kind of people who, if they don't get a reference, they look it up, or just skip it and watch the rest of the show, not the type who would be "black credit card? what? i'm confused!! i don't want to watch this show anymore!" (i don't think a single person on this planet exists that falls into that last category)

i knew what it was and i have absolutely no hope of ever dreaming of having one of those cards. i don't think the reference was too far over any viewer's heads because he explained what it was if i remember right. or maybe i just knew because it is not really that obscure knowledge.

j6p doesn't watch this show, so they don't need to dumb it down for them. people who are interested in the world of tv production and people who are into aaron sorkin watch this show. the kind of people who, if they don't get a reference, they look it up, or just skip it and watch the rest of the show, not the type who would be "black credit card? what? i'm confused!! i don't want to watch this show anymore!" (i don't think a single person on this planet exists that falls into that last category)


Again, if you cannot get it to J6P level, its as good as cancelled.

If I want to impress a waitress or hotel staff, I have found I can tip them an extra $20 - and 100% know what that is - compared to handing them a card that they think is equivilant to a lump of coal - most have never heard of - much less seen - and they question if its even a real card after having it in their hand.

Considering I have spoken with Presidents of Major Entertainment Companies that have no idea about the Black AMEX card, even the type people that you think watch Studio 60 have very little knowledge of it - outside the likes of P Diddy.

Quite simply, most of these people deal with Special Services at the airlines anyway - if they aren't flying private - they most likely are flying first class anyway - if by some chance they aren't - Special Services will take special care of them without a Black AMEX.

A Black AMEX card isn't going to get you the best table @ the Ivy either - or Spagos - or courtside seats at a Lakers game. But a call from a high powered Hollywood Executive's Assistant will.

Like most things these days, its simply a gimmick - and doing a quick Google search turned up someone in less than 30 seconds with a card that had a purchase turned down - so much for "unlimited no hassle acceptance".

I suspect it is more for "dreamers" instead of reality.

Everyone complaining here seems to have conveniently or unfortunately missed the fact that the reference to the Black American Express Card was qualified with a statement that he could post a million dollars in bail with that card, which should serve as adequate additional information to the people who might have never heard of the card [like that cop].

Everyone complaining here seems to have conveniently or unfortunately missed the fact that the reference to the Black American Express Card was qualified with a statement that he could post a million dollars in bail with that card, which should serve as adequate additional information to the people who might have never heard of the card [like that cop].

there used to be a thread here about Studio 60, where did it go?

Everyone complaining here seems to have conveniently or unfortunately missed the fact that the reference to the Black American Express Card was qualified with a statement that he could post a million dollars in bail with that card, which should serve as adequate additional information to the people who might have never heard of the card [like that cop].
And the fisherman judge a new boat. ;)

A Black AMEX card isn't going to get you the best table @ the Ivy either - or Spagos - or courtside seats at a Lakers game. But a call from a high powered Hollywood Executive's Assistant will.

You are wrong about 2 out of three of your examples above.

You are correct about special services and such. It's better than the black card. But even less people qualify for that. It's pretty much by divine right...

Again, as shown in this thread, most people have no idea that the Black Centurion card even exists - and I know many high up in Broadcasting that have no idea that it exists, so it really doesnt help to throw out a reference to something that 99.999% of the population have never heard of - or have a concept what it denotes.

Write like that - over the heads of an audience - and you can be sure your show will be cancelled for lack of an audience.

The character explained what the card was in his dialogue: "This is a black American Express card with a $1 million limit!" Even a viewer with an IQ in the single digits can follow that. Exactly how dumb do you think the average American really is that he can't figure out that someone saying they have a million dollar credit limit means that they have a million dollar credit limit?

People accuse Sorkin and "Hollywood" in general of being elitist snobs who look down on the rest of the country, but it seems to me that you're the one being the elitist snob here.

Does anyone here really care about this silly card discussion except for the participants?

This was a funny, smart episode in a show that has maybe the cleverest writing on a series this season. I'll miss it when it's gone.

The character explained what the card was in his dialogue: "This is a black American Express card with a $1 million limit!" Even a viewer with an IQ in the single digits can follow that. Exactly how dumb do you think the average American really is that he can't figure out that someone saying they have a million dollar credit limit means that they have a million dollar credit limit?

People accuse Sorkin and "Hollywood" in general of being elitist snobs who look down on the rest of the country, but it seems to me that you're the one being the elitist snob here.

So the earlier poster says that the Black card has no limit and the actor says it does.

Oh, so this show is reality? Hmmm......

TV NEVER makes up products that don't exist, lol.

Excuse me, I have to go talk to My Favorite Martian, get in my Jet Car and to go to the local transporter so I can beam to work.

Does anyone here really care about this silly card discussion except for the participants?


Actually, I dont give a rats ass about the card discussion.

The card reference and discussion just shine the light on the bigger issue - which if you are a "smart non-J6P" viewer why didn't you pick up on?

The reference is an example of writing over the IQ of the American Public and thus setting yourself up for ratings failure and cancellation.

Sorkin is a genius when it comes to writing. Like creative people, he has his quirks. However, he needs the proper team around him to help him bring it to a level that the masses can understand.

The real master of the art is being able to write on an intellegent level, but still have it translate so an 8th grade education can get it.

That's the fine line between greatness and failure.

The reference is an example of writing over the IQ of the American Public and thus setting yourself up for ratings failure and cancellation.



I agree with Josh above on this one. How is a credit card with a million dollar limit (regardless of whether it really exists or not--what difference does that make anyway?) writing over the IQ of the American Public? I think this show, like the West Wing, probably does have many references that do go over people's heads, but I don't see how this credit card example is one of them.

Wow, I don't think you could have a more irrelevant discussion about this show.

If you think that 99.99% of the population has never heard of the A&C bit, I can assure you are dreaming.

Your reading skills are slipping, or you are reading too fast. I clearly (I thought) indicated the exact opposite of your quoted conclusion. My point was that it was absurd to think those two middle class, older people, with a son in TV, would not be aware of A&C and the Who's on First sketch. I put it in the same unbelievability group (99.9%) that you put the other issue. Hence, my use of "they get the double whammy" - they did it twice.

The reference is an example of writing over the IQ of the American Public and thus setting yourself up for ratings failure and cancellation.

Sorkin is a genius when it comes to writing. Like creative people, he has his quirks. However, he needs the proper team around him to help him bring it to a level that the masses can understand.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Sorkin should dumb the show down for the lowest common denominator? We have enough shows like that on TV right now. If that's really what you want, you're watching the wrong one.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Sorkin should dumb the show down for the lowest common denominator?

Actually, that's a great idea. Jordan and Jack can wear funny masks and tights and wrestle for control of the network. Matt can go to the writer's room and tell the writers that whoever eats the most disgusting bug gets a skit in the show. Simon can discover the ability to see and talk to dead comedians who worked in the studio in the past. And of course, we can have the occasional flashback to see Jordan's deviant sexual past in all its glory.

and it shouldn't be scripted anymore. they should lock the actors in a room stocked with cocaine and 100 sexy models and film them 24/7. each week the viewers get to vote one of them off.

and maybe they could have a spinoff where each week a christian really does get bashed. and for sweeps they could have celbrity christian bashing (christian slater?).

I assume everyone heard that the show got picked up for a full season?

And monkeys! Don't forget monkeys!

Your reading skills are slipping, or you are reading too fast. I clearly (I thought) indicated the exact opposite of your quoted conclusion. My point was that it was absurd to think those two middle class, older people, with a son in TV, would not be aware of A&C and the Who's on First sketch. I put it in the same unbelievability group (99.9%) that you put the other issue. Hence, my use of "they get the double whammy" - they did it twice.

I am saying 99.9% dont know what a Black Centurion Card is.

Apparently you are saying 99.9% do know what A&C who's on first is.

So its not the same 99.9% as you stated - they are used in reverse context.

I assume everyone heard that the show got picked up for a full season?

Well duh.....like NBC has anything else to put in its place.....

Are you seriously trying to argue that Sorkin should dumb the show down for the lowest common denominator? We have enough shows like that on TV right now. If that's really what you want, you're watching the wrong one.

Re-read what I wrote.

There is a reason why you use a writing team on most successful shows.

I assume everyone heard that the show got picked up for a full season?

Could you please give us your source?

I have read a couple of stories saying the pickup was expected within a week or so, but there has been no official confirmation. It hasn't been reported from NBC itself, nor any of the trade publications as far as I can tell.

It would be great news if true, and I do expect it soon, but I would love to know your source for this "fact".

Could you please give us your source?

I have read a couple of stories saying the pickup was expected within a week or so, but there has been no official confirmation. It hasn't been reported from NBC itself, nor any of the trade publications as far as I can tell.

It would be great news if true, and I do expect it soon, but I would love to know your source for this "fact".


http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/061109c.php

Not true official...but close enough I guess...Dark Horizons isn't usually wrong

Kristin from E! Online reports (http://www.eonline.com/gossip/kristin/blog/index.jsp?uuid=c592e2f9-63db-429d-b860-a5d9c89787ff) that both NBC and Warner Bros. (the studio behind Studio 60) have confirmed the pickup...

Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117953649.html?categoryid=14&cs=1) has also picked up the story...

Good news!


ron

Official NBC press release (http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20061109nbc01) (via The Futon Critic)

TV Notebook
NBC's 'Studio 60' gets full season
By Nellie Andreeva The Hollywood Reporter Nov 10, 2006

After days of speculation, NBC has handed a back-nine order to "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," bringing the order to Aaron Sorkin's critically praised drama set behind the scenes of a late-night sketch comedy show to 22.

Sources said the deal for the back-nine episodes was made at a lower license fee than the original one, said to be in the range of $2.5 million-$3 million per episode, and the episode guarantees for the members of the show's ensemble cast have been reduced by one.

NBC and producer Warner Bros. TV declined comment.

Airing behind the breakout new hit of the season, NBC's "Heroes," "Studio 60" got off to a promising start, but the ratings substantially tapered off, settling into the low 3 rating point range among adults 18-49. This week, the series starring Matthew Perry, Bradley Whitford and Amanda Peet averaged a 3.3 rating/8 share in the demo and 7.7 million viewers overall, finishing third in the hour.

"I've never wavered in my belief in the show," NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly said. "With the talent we have in front and behind the camera and with the direction Aaron is taking the relationships, I think the show's passionate core audience will be excited, and the other viewers who sampled it can be won over."

"Studio 60" was taken off its 10 p.m. Monday slot last week when the network tried out another critically praised but low-rated new drama, "Friday Night Lights."

Reilly wouldn't say whether "Studio 60" will remain in its Monday berth. He said the network is looking at several possible scheduling moves, with a new midseason schedule set to be announced next week.

Reilly also declined comment on the fate of two other struggling new series, which have not been picked up for a full season, "Lights" and the comedy "30 Rock."

" 'Studio 60,' 'Friday Night Lights' and '30 Rock' are really good shows with passionate underlying audiences that are back on brand with NBC," Reilly said.

"30 Rock" and "Lights" received orders for three additional scripts, a step NBC also took with "Studio 60" before ordering a full season.

"Studio 60," executive produced by Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme, has the highest concentration of viewers with a household income of more than $75,000 of any show on television. The series co-stars Sarah Paulson, D.L. Hughley, Steven Weber, Nathan Corddry and Timothy Busfield.

In other pickup news, the CW has ordered three additional scripts each of "Veronica Mars" and "One Tree Hill."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ia52li9aIs4OXPoh07vkw8Q%3D%3D

If you think that 99.99% of the population has never heard of the A&C bit, I can assure you are dreaming.

Apparently you are saying 99.9% do know what A&C who's on first is.

So its not the same 99.9% as you stated - they are used in reverse context.

Just talk among yourselves. You probably understand each other better.

Favorite line last night (paraphrasing)

Jordan: OK, I have abandonment issues.
Danny: OK, I have to go.Not bad, but my vote goes to the brief line uttered by Tom Jeter (Nate Corddry) while in custody in the Parump NV "municipal building" after overhearing the Chinese zillionaire and his daughter jabbering back and forth in Chinese:

"You hired assassins?"

I swear, I suddenly and uncontrollably burst out screaming with laughter and had to rewind the DVR to hear that line repeated... about four times, before I finally calmed down. Absolutely and completely unexpected, the sudden and extreme hilarity of those three simple words in the context of the scene.

I'm getting old and senile and my powers of comprehension aren't what they used to be.
So please help me out with the ending of tonight's episode.
I don't know the forum protocol with these TV shows so I'll put the question in spoilers just in case.

Okay, here's the part I got. Jeter was speeding. There was an anti-war protest at the military base. The judge apparently suspicioned Jeter had intent to be a part of the protest. And then the judge discovers that Jeter's brother is a war hero of sorts.
Then the conversation between the judge and Jeter ensues and that's the part that sorta went by me. So what specifically happened in that conversation to win the judge's approval? Was it the judge's respect for Jeter because he refused to drag his brother's situation into the matter? Is that it? Or is there something else I'm missing?

One last question. Does my having to ask this question put me in the category of the dumbed down masses which were referred to earlier in this thread?

Question: How do you know that this show won't be picked up next season?

Answer: The big Red on White FOR LEASE sign hanging on the side of the building supposed to be the NBS studio lot/complex that can be seen for a good period of time in the last 60 seconds of tonight's episode while standing in the parking lot.

Just think....call the number on the sign and you too can lease the NBS Complex!

I'm getting old and senile and my powers of comprehension aren't what they used to be.
So please help me out with the ending of tonight's episode.
I don't know the forum protocol with these TV shows so I'll put the question in spoilers just in case.

Okay, here's the part I got. Jeter was speeding. There was an anti-war protest at the military base. The judge apparently suspicioned Jeter had intent to be a part of the protest. And then the judge discovers that Jeter's brother is a war hero of sorts.
Then the conversation between the judge and Jeter ensues and that's the part that sorta went by me. So what specifically happened in that conversation to win the judge's approval? Was it the judge's respect for Jeter because he refused to drag his brother's situation into the matter? Is that it? Or is there something else I'm missing?

One last question. Does my having to ask this question put me in the category of the dumbed down masses which were referred to earlier in this thread?

The judge realized that he was speeding to go see his brother before he was deployed again.


No

The judge realized that he was speeding to go see his brother before he was deployed again.




Well, that's a duh. Any 5th grader got that part....

What the OP wanted to know was how did the Judge all the sudden

1) Know his brother was solider

2) Know his brother name

3) Know his brothers rank

4) Know his brother's company

5) Know his brother was being deployed that day

6) or know anything else about his brother from looking at his right wrist.

Well, that's a duh. Any 5th grader got that part....

What the OP wanted to know was how did the Judge all the sudden

1) Know his brother was solider

2) Know his brother name

3) Know his brothers rank

4) Know his brother's company

5) Know his brother was being deployed that day

6) or know anything else about his brother from looking at his right wrist.


The judge read the braclet on his arm when he was standing beside him. He even asked to see his wrist to get all of the information.

What a stupid episode - I'm sorry, it just was. What a surprise that the judge relented, what a surprise that Jack Rudolph has a heart of gold and his passionate speech saved the acquisition, what a surprise that they made it back in time for the show. Stupid and predictable.

And speaking of stupid, the assistant DA (or whatever the paintball guy was) notices that the wrist band is military, and then when Judge Goodman explains what Tom's brother does, the same ADA says, "Is that dangerous?"

Still speaking of stupid, oh the old translation mixup! Ripped from the mailing it in textbook.

Still more stupid, fat guy is terrified of being out of costume and doing the news desk, Matt whispers sweet nothings into hot lady's ear, two seconds later hot lady convinces fatty he'd look good in a suit doing the news! What an incredible turnaround!

I'm really trying, but I'm about done with Studio 60 - I don't care that it's been given a full season. Maybe Sorkin has somebody ghostwriting this, because it's easily the worst thing he's ever put on screen (that I've seen anyway). This is making the early post-Sorkin era of "The West Wing" seem like award-winning material.

I'm with you sangs. I thought there could be hope after last week's episode, but the way they wrapped everything up was ridiculous.

... and for someone not too fond of Christians, he sure does a lot of preaching. He's back to writing like he's dealing with all those people "dumber than him" and he has to restate the same message 20 different ways to make sure everyone "gets it".

What a stupid episode - I'm sorry, it just was. What a surprise that the judge relented, what a surprise that Jack Rudolph has a heart of gold and his passionate speech saved the acquisition, what a surprise that they made it back in time for the show. Stupid and predictable.

And speaking of stupid, the assistant DA (or whatever the paintball guy was) notices that the wrist band is military, and then when Judge Goodman explains what Tom's brother does, the same ADA says, "Is that dangerous?"

Still speaking of stupid, oh the old translation mixup! Ripped from the mailing it in textbook.

Still more stupid, fat guy is terrified of being out of costume and doing the news desk, Matt whispers sweet nothings into hot lady's ear, two seconds later hot lady convinces fatty he'd look good in a suit doing the news! What an incredible turnaround!

I'm really trying, but I'm about done with Studio 60 - I don't care that it's been given a full season. Maybe Sorkin has somebody ghostwriting this, because it's easily the worst thing he's ever put on screen (that I've seen anyway). This is making the early post-Sorkin era of "The West Wing" seem like award-winning material.

Most of what you said is valid, but I had a different take on the Translation thing was...As soon as the daughter said "Honor" I thought Jack was just playing against it and the Oriental guy used "translation" as an excuse to honor Jack's "honorable" act.

But I'm not a fan of everything getting tied up neatly at the end....

The judge realized that he was speeding to go see his brother before he was deployed again.


No

Well, that's a duh. Any 5th grader got that part....

What the OP wanted to know was how did the Judge all the sudden

1) Know his brother was solider

2) Know his brother name

3) Know his brothers rank

4) Know his brother's company

5) Know his brother was being deployed that day

6) or know anything else about his brother from looking at his right wrist.
It is so terribly embarrassing for me to have to admit this, but no I'm afraid cherry ghost was correct. I didn't even comprehend the part about him speeding to get to where the brother was going to be either. Let alone the rest.

There comes a time when one just has no choice except to face the fact that
age is finally catching up to oneself.
It's like when I used to do acid many years ago. Age has a similiarly debilitating effect on one's powers of concentration and comprehension.
Except the difference with aging as opposed to acid is that I cannot choose to stop ingesting what it is that causes it. I'm pretty much stuck with it.

(From Marc Berman’s Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2006, Programming Insider blog at Mediaweek.com )

“…First in the (10 PM) hour remained CBS’ CSI: Miami at a rock-solid 18.44 million viewers and a 6.2/16 among adults 18-49 (6.39 million more viewers than lead-in The New Adventures of Old Christine), followed by NBC’s just full-season-renewed Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip at a typically modest 7.79 million viewers and a 3.2/ 8 among adults 18-49. Expect Studio 60 to find a new time period in midseason....”

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data
http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63310451/m/51110102

LOL ... I see there appears to be more ruffled feathers this morning. :D This thread is almost as entertaining as the show itself. ;)

You seem to be the only one laughing. How do complaints about a ridiculous premise with a ridiculous ending become "ruffled feathers"?

Another vote with sangs and CPanther on this one. The previous episode had really given me some hope that things were improving. This conclusion ep was everything sangs said and completely reversed course on my improvement theory. One step forward, two back.

RobtWood, don't feel bad about missing that part. Sorkin's style of writing can be dense and very fast paced, making it easy to miss or completely absorb all the little facts and nuances that fly by (see West Wing, The Early Years Dialogue, for example). Even the poster "correcting/explaining" the first explanation really didn't get it all.

I had a different take on the Translation thing was...As soon as the daughter said "Honor" I thought Jack was just playing against it and the Oriental guy used "translation" as an excuse to honor Jack's "honorable" act.....

My wife is Chinese, but she speaks Cantonese, not Mandarin, so she couldn't translate the conversation exactly. But her take was precisly what you suggest. It would be impossible for someone in his position to admit to making a mistake or appologizing for his outburst...so they would play it off as a translation problem instead of losing face in front of an inferior. I'd love to find out from a Mandarin speaker what the girl and her father actually said to each other.

The judge read the braclet on his arm when he was standing beside him. He even asked to see his wrist to get all of the information.

I can only assume because of the handcuffs it was very hard to see the braclet and freely admit I missed it as well that left me wondering wtf was that about.

"CBS came back in a big way at 10 p.m. with "CSI: Miami" (18.4 million, 6.2/16), which was up strongly compared to last week's 16.8 million viewers and 5.7/15. "Studio 60" (7.8 million, 3.2/8) was up only slightly compared to last week's 7.7 million and 3.3/8. ABC's "What About Brian" (5.6 million, 2.5/6) wasn't on last week due to the telecast"

I'm with you sangs. I thought there could be hope after last week's episode, but the way they wrapped everything up was ridiculous.

... and for someone not too fond of Christians, he sure does a lot of preaching. He's back to writing like he's dealing with all those people "dumber than him" and he has to restate the same message 20 different ways to make sure everyone "gets it".

Yea, I thought the way they handled that episode was beyond stupid. So he was going to see his brother. Great. But he was speeding. 120mph and he didn't go to court AND he had felony possesion. Going to see his brother may have got him a pass IF he went to court in the first place but with the FTA him walking was just bad writing. I want to like this show but the dirty little secret of the TV year is that it just isn't that good.

Yea, I thought the way they handled that episode was beyond stupid. So he was going to see his brother. Great. But he was speeding. 120mph and he didn't go to court AND he had felony possesion. Going to see his brother may have got him a pass IF he went to court in the first place but with the FTA him walking was just bad writing. I want to like this show but the dirty little secret of the TV year is that it just isn't that good.

If you buy the premise that the judge was willing to convict Tom based on his dislike of his show, then you should also buy into him throwing out the charges based on his support for the troops and their families.

You seem to be the only one laughing. How do complaints about a ridiculous premise with a ridiculous ending become "ruffled feathers"?

Yep ... I'm laughing alright. :D

IMHO, the various reactions to this show are the real entertainment ... which might have been the point in the first place. ;)

If you buy the premise that the judge was willing to convict Tom based on his dislike of his show,...

Not to nit-pick, but where did they indicate the Judge was willing to convict based on the dislike of the show? He was looking at a 120mph uncontested speeding ticket and an absolute possession of drugs. No matter your take or politics on the other issues (Hollywood vs. Chrisitians vs. =insert group here=), the Judge, though a definite smart-ass, didn't indicate convicting at all - they were waiting for the prosecutor and looking at hard evidence. His point to the network brass was simply that they were no longer the big bosses - in this town, he was.

I also agree about the face-saving translation scene. That's what it was - face saving.

Show still sucked though. :D

If you buy the premise that the judge was willing to convict Tom based on his dislike of his show, then you should also buy into him throwing out the charges based on his support for the troops and their families.
I didn't buy either premise. I thought the "I hate your show" bit was just the judge rattling the poor writer for fun, not that he would actually convict him for being on a crappy show. I guess I was wrong.

I can't remember the last time I anticipated the second part of a two parter and been so disappointed. The first part really picked up my hopes for this show.

It also seemed like this two-parter only had enough material for a one-part episode so they padded the first part with pointless backshadowing (i.e. "x hours earlier").

And on an earlier complaint....

The stylist who cuts my hair is 24 years old and very blonde, yet she was familiar with the "Who's on First?" routine. She thought Laurel and Hardy did it, but at least she knew about it.

Not to nit-pick, but where did they indicate the Judge was willing to convict based on the dislike of the show? He was looking at a 120mph uncontested speeding ticket and an absolute possession of drugs. No matter your take or politics on the other issues (Hollywood vs. Chrisitians vs. =insert group here=), the Judge, though a definite smart-ass, didn't indicate convicting at all - they were waiting for the prosecutor and looking at hard evidence. His point to the network brass was simply that they were no longer the big bosses - in this town, he was.

I also agree about the face-saving translation scene. That's what it was - face saving.

Show still sucked though. :D

Agree 100%.

I'd also add that it was stupid for him (speeder) to be portrayed as so honorable that he wouldn't even use his "get out of jail free" excuse in honor of his hero brother - yet he completely ignored the ticket in the first place and got a FTA.

That's all assuming that the premise itself isn't ridiculous. How is speeding to see your brother before his next deployment a bad thing to reveal? It doesn't really justify speeding, may get you off anyway - but I fail to see how just the mention of it as an excuse somehow dishonors his brother.

The card reference and discussion just shine the light on the bigger issue - which if you are a "smart non-J6P" viewer why didn't you pick up on?

The reference is an example of writing over the IQ of the American Public and thus setting yourself up for ratings failure and cancellation.I'm constantly surprised at the number of otherwise bright people who can't distinguish between intelligence and knowledge.

Just to review: if you know something and the other person doesn't, that doesn't necessarily mean you're smarter than him.

For example, if I know that voltage x amperage = power, and the other guy doesn't, he isn't dumber than me: he just doesn't know that fact. Someone with an IQ of a gazillion may not know that my mother-in-law wears a wig. Or that there is some special black AMEX card. That doesn't make him dumb.

Not to nit-pick, but where did they indicate the Judge was willing to convict based on the dislike of the show? He was looking at a 120mph uncontested speeding ticket and an absolute possession of drugs. No matter your take or politics on the other issues (Hollywood vs. Chrisitians vs. =insert group here=), the Judge, though a definite smart-ass, didn't indicate convicting at all - they were waiting for the prosecutor and looking at hard evidence. His point to the network brass was simply that they were no longer the big bosses - in this town, he was.

I also agree about the face-saving translation scene. That's what it was - face saving.

Show still sucked though. :D

Good job, Flint. You've got it.

I'm surprised that folks here are not noting the message in the show that gay is good and in particular, gay marriage. Christians have been set-up as being crazy and they oppose gay marriage. .................. The message ......... ???????

This program is all about Hollywood messages aimed at gradually gaining acceptance and even support. After all, who would want to be in the group that is not broadminded enough to see God's world as it really is and come to understanding accomodation?

Shameless manipulation in the Hollywood tradition. Some people will buy in.

I don't think anyone on the show said gay or gay marriage is good. Some of the characters are saying it's not bad (i.e. should not be judged -- judge not lest ye be judged).

Yes, you are correct. They said in effect that it would be 'good' NOT to judge it. (To me, that says it would be better (for whom?) if people did NOT judge it (gay marriage).

I've been thinking about it and ................. I want to make a judgment.

I'm surprised that folks here are not noting the message in the show that gay is good and in particular, gay marriage. Christians have been set-up as being crazy and they oppose gay marriage. .................. The message ......... ???????


C'mon, let's be fair. Not all Christians, just the wacko fundamentalist fringe. And the point is that it's silly to allow that group to dictate social policy and who is deserving of civil rights in this Republic based on their interpretation of one holy book in a world filled with them. That's not a subversive message, it's a rational one.

Polling consistently show that between 50 and 60 percent of Americans do not favor legalizing same- sex marriages. Is this the Fundamentalist fringe Sorkin is targeting?

And on an earlier complaint....

The stylist who cuts my hair is 24 years old and very blonde, yet she was familiar with the "Who's on First?" routine. She thought Laurel and Hardy did it, but at least she knew about it.

And my 19 year old blonde sister-in-law who is quite smart had no idea that Mission Impossible used to be a TV show (twice). We could play this all night.

So what? That doesn't prove anything but how someone would do on quiz shows.


tim

I'm constantly surprised at the number of otherwise bright people who can't distinguish between intelligence and knowledge.

Just to review: if you know something and the other person doesn't, that doesn't necessarily mean you're smarter than him.

For example, if I know that voltage x amperage = power, and the other guy doesn't, he isn't dumber than me: he just doesn't know that fact. Someone with an IQ of a gazillion may not know that my mother-in-law wears a wig. Or that there is some special black AMEX card. That doesn't make him dumb.


2 Diggs. One for a great post and another for P=IV!


tim

Polling consistently show that between 50 and 60 percent of Americans do not favor legalizing same- sex marriages. Is this the Fundamentalist fringe Sorkin is targeting?

Of course not, but the fringe does appear to be the "leader" in this issue. They've raised so much hell about it, so to speak, that it's filtered down to the "rank & file". Honestly, that's the only reason I can come up with to account for the percentages you cite (and gay marriage bans passed in 7 of the 8 states where it was on the ballot last Tuesday). Since the only objection to allowing gay marriage, or civil unions, or whatever you want to call it, appears to be religious-based, it would seem to me to have no place in a constitutional democracy where there is a supposed wall between church and state. Everyone in this country is supposed to enjoy the same civil rights, are they not? That's how I see it, anyway. But that's not a terribly popular view these days, especially in my church. ;)

C'mon, let's be fair. Not all Christians, just the wacko fundamentalist fringe. And the point is that it's silly to allow that group to dictate social policy and who is deserving of civil rights in this Republic based on their interpretation of one holy book in a world filled with them. That's not a subversive message, it's a rational one.

I know kbp already said this, but the "wacko fundamentalist fringe" is around 50-60% of the entire American public.

There is a "wacko fundamentalist fringe" but most of the people who oppose gay marriage are not in that group. There are people who oppose gay marriage who aren't Christians. And there are Christians who don't oppose gay marriage. But, yes they do tend to go hand in hand.

And just remember, one man's silly reasoning is another's rational thought process. When you vote, there is no box to explain your reasoning. You can vote for whomever or whatever you want for whatever reason....as long as you vote. :)

Of course not, but the fringe does appear to be the "leader" in this issue. They've raised so much hell about it, so to speak, that it's filtered down to the "rank & file". Honestly, that's the only reason I can come up with to account for the percentages you cite (and gay marriage bans passed in 7 of the 8 states where it was on the ballot last Tuesday). Since the only objection to allowing gay marriage, or civil unions, or whatever you want to call it, appears to be religious-based, it would seem to me to have no place in a constitutional democracy where there is a supposed wall between church and state. Everyone in this country is supposed to enjoy the same civil rights, are they not? That's how I see it, anyway. But that's not a terribly popular view these days, especially in my church. ;)

(First, not ganging up on you, just enjoying the time to finally engage in a conversation while my sick wife and daughter are sleeping).

The fringe is almost always the leader in any issue. Whether it's political, religious, social, or about TV shows. ;)

People can vote with any reason they want. No one votes impartially. If someone is not a Christian, maybe they have other issues guiding their choices. But just because God opposes gay marriage and person X votes against gay marriage because of that, doesn't make their vote/opinion invalid.

I'll have to brush up on my US documents, but doesn't the separation of church and state have to do with the state endorsing a federal/state religion? I know this issue is usually confusing.


tim
(enjoying not having to clean up any vomit right now ;) Off to keep doing laundry and cleaning)

And my 19 year old blonde sister-in-law who is quite smart had no idea that Mission Impossible used to be a TV show (twice). We could play this all night.
I'm not surprised. The Mission Impossible TV series isn't nearly as famous as A&C's "Who's On First?" routine.

(People can vote with any reason they want. No one votes impartially. If someone is not a Christian, maybe they have other issues guiding their choices. But just because God opposes gay marriage and person X votes against gay marriage because of that, doesn't make their vote/opinion invalid.

Not invalid; a vote is a vote. But if done for those reasons, then it becomes an immoral act, IMO. And I'm speaking, of course, of the "universal" morality of what's right and wrong, not anything based on any given religion.

I'll have to brush up on my US documents, but doesn't the separation of church and state have to do with the state endorsing a federal/state religion? I know this issue is usually confusing.

Yes, but in a larger sense, it's designed to keep religion from meddling in the secular affairs of state. Religion has no place in a discussion of civil rights. That's a very dangerous road to travel, as we see very clearly in other parts of the world.

Sorry about your sick family, Tim. I've been there; no fun. :(

Legal marriage developed within society a very long time ago. Does anyone dare venture a guess as why it came came into being in the first place?

I will venture my guess later, but it won't be because people wanted a way to "publicly declare their love and committment to each other."

The founders were of several different opinions as to what the relationship between religion and the state should be. The only inference of their collective intention, for which they had to comprise and AGREE to, is what was written and ultimately ratified by the states.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;........

Please note it makes no mention of what the President may or may not do nor any member of the Judiciary nor any individual state, school district, or any individual voter for that matter. It is addressing the action of CONGRESS, period.

The founders certainly intended that religious beliefs be allowed to guide those in government and to actually intrude into government. The obvious proof of this is that when these same founders, the men who actually WROTE the Constitution, participated in the newly formed Congress, Presidency and Judiciary, many unabashedly expressed religious principles (From MANY faiths) as the foundation of their actions. Many “religious” practices were also observed in the context of government. There was no objection to the intermingling of religion and state, even by those in the government who were not of the same beliefs, because having been a party to writing the Constitution, they new perfectly well this was what was agreed upon.

I've heard that argument and I don't buy it. Insofar as the Founders were guided by religious principals, it was only to the extent that their religion gave them a foundation of right and wrong, a moral baseline for future actions. I'm quite sure they didn't intend the Bible, one holy book among many, to become a guiding force in how laws were formulated and implemented in this secular government they fashioned.

In the case of gay marriage, all the objections are religious-based. Nothing else holds any water. It's simply a case of civil rights, and to deny any group of Americans equal rights based solely on their sexual orientation is completely contrary to what this country is supposed to be all about. I think the push to write an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution is especially reprehensible (Writing discrimination against a particular group of law-abiding citizens into the U.S. Constitution? Unbelievable!), but we seem to have no shortage of Congressional leaders willing to pander to that constituency.

Those darn left wing hollywoodies have been indoctrinating us since we were kids! Why do you think they dressed bugs bunny in drag so often. And daffy talked with a lisp!!!

Oh my god.

I need to go to church for a quick unindoctrinating indoctrination session BEFORE I TURN GAY!!!

This one could go on forever - it's one of those issues both sides feel strongly about for their own reasons, so it will never come to general agreement. So what is left is the process and the reasoning, not the actual issue.

Two brief observations (and pls. don't assume from this that you know my position on Gay marriage - or that it even matters, as it doesn't). First, there are definitely more than simple religious (fringe or not) issues that people have with Gay marriage. To say all objections are religion based is inaccurate in my view (there are cultural, traditional and other "natural" viewpoints expressed in opposition as well). Maybe valid, maybe not, but the process is left to the voters in a Republic. People forget - the US is not a real democracy, it's a Republic. Plus, the tendency to label those in opposition always as the "fringe" is dangerous and often inaccurate.

On the religion vs. gov't issue - I often see this misapplied and believe it is generally misunderstood. The separation of church and state was never conceived (according to most credible historians I've read) as a wall btwn church and state or as an effort to limit the influence of religion on government. Quite to the contrary, it was always intended, conversely, to protect religion from government. It did not in any meaningful way I've ever been shown, limit government's reliance on, belief in or application of any religious doctrine except to show a specific preference. It did not allow for giving more credence to one religion over the other - but it is misapplied today in challenging Xmas decorations/celebrations, prayer in school (even voluntary) and in general to excise any mention of religion from gov't in any form. Many advocates of causes quickly point to "separation of church and state" - but they do so from shaky ground. That's as brief as I can make it and still make some little sense. It leaves my argument open to obvious critique, but I doubt this topic will continue as a religious debate without being moderated, civil or not. It is stimulating conversation though.

Yes, agree this has gone OT, but it is civil, so we’ll see. The Mods will do what they think is right, and I’ll totally respect that.

I've heard that argument and I don't buy it. Insofar as the Founders were guided by religious principals, it was only to the extent that their religion gave them a foundation of right and wrong, a moral baseline for future actions. I'm quite sure they didn't intend the Bible, one holy book among many, to become a guiding force in how laws were formulated and implemented in this secular government they fashioned.

In the case of gay marriage, all the objections are religious-based. Nothing else holds any water. It's simply a case of civil rights, and to deny any group of Americans equal rights based solely on their sexual orientation is completely contrary to what this country is supposed to be all about. I think the push to write an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution is especially reprehensible (Writing discrimination against a particular group of law-abiding citizens into the U.S. Constitution? Unbelievable!), but we seem to have no shortage of Congressional leaders willing to pander to that constituency.
There’s nothing to “buy”. You can easily research it. The people who wrote the Constitution, upon being elected to office in the newly formed Congress, and to the Presidency and in being put on the Judiciary, explicitly injected the Bible and their personal religious beliefs (of many different faiths) into the government they were running. This is how THEY wrote the Constitution and this is how THEY put it into practice what they themselves had written. They also fully intended any and all differing religious doctrine and other opposing religious beliefs to have the same opportunity to be injected into, and even to dominate the government, within the representative procedures they established. What they explicity did NOT want was an official Church of America, to the exclusion of all others, as they had fled the official and ONLY Church of England.

Gay marriage is not an issue of discrimination. No person is being denied the right to participate in or reap the perceived advantages of marriage based on their sexual preference. I can tell you for a fact that many, many gay men are married and have been married over the course of this country. (sometimes coming as quite a shock to their wives!!) If you go to get a marriage license today and one of you screams at the top of your lungs that you are gay, they will still give you a license and a judge is still required to respect your rights and marry you. Even two homosexuals can marry, as long as they are of opposite gender. Conversely, if two heterosexual men (or women) try to get a marriage license, they will be rejected. It is totally irrelevant of sexual preference.

Gay marriage is not an issue of discrimination. No person is being denied the right to participate in or reap the perceived advantages of marriage based on their sexual preference. I can tell you for a fact that many, many gay men are married and have been married over the course of this country. (sometimes coming as quite a shock to their wives!!) If you go to get a marriage license today and one of you screams at the top of your lungs that you are gay, they will still give you a license and a judge is still required to respect your rights and marry you. Even two homosexuals can marry, as long as they are of opposite gender. Conversely, if two heterosexual men (or women) try to get a marriage license, they will be rejected. It is totally irrelevant of sexual preference.

I don't think you can use a weaker argument. Why don't you just say it's "not natural" and be done with it. :rolleyes:

OK then, back on the subject of the show we're supposed to be talking about....

Is the storyline about Amanda Peet not liking children meant to be a wink-wink joke to the viewers? I mean, they certainly haven't done a damn thing to disguise the fact that she is quite visably about 6 months pregnant.

Nobody seems to care as to why the practice of legal marriage exists, but I'm going to give my opinion anyway.

Sexual relations between males and females resulted in babies that frequently placed an undue hardship on females and the tribe. Tribes REQUIRED legal marriage in order to hold males accountable for satisfying their sexual urges.

I think it is no more complicated than that.

(Church marriage is available to homosexuals.)

Nobody seems to care as to why the practice of legal marriage exists, but I'm going to give my opinion anyway.

Sexual relations between males and females resulted in babies that frequently placed an undue hardship on females and the tribe. Tribes REQUIRED legal marriage in order to hold males accountable for satisfying their sexual urges.

I think it is no more complicated than that.

(Church marriage is available to homosexuals.)

I don't think that's terribly far off; certainly it was a factor. However, times have changed. These days, it's been proven that children raised in a loving, stable, 2-parent household turn out just fine regardless of whether they have parents of differing sex or the same sex; and certainly no worse than the zillions of kids being raised in single-parent households. The objections to gay marriage are solely religious-based, and as such, have no place in a discussion that boils down to denying civil rights to a particular group in a secular republic like this one or the European democracies. This is just the last dying breath of discrimination, and it too shall pass. It'll just take a little longer because the objections are defined in religious terms instead of simple justice for all.

Is the storyline about Amanda Peet not liking children meant to be a wink-wink joke to the viewers? I mean, they certainly haven't done a damn thing to disguise the fact that she is quite visably about 6 months pregnant.

I've said it before: you just know there was some serious teeth-gnashing going on with the producers of this show when their star and major babe-factor-chick announced her failure at family planning right after production started. :p

OK then, back on the subject of the show we're supposed to be talking about....

Is the storyline about Amanda Peet not liking children meant to be a wink-wink joke to the viewers? I mean, they certainly haven't done a damn thing to disguise the fact that she is quite visably about 6 months pregnant.

I was wondering if they were going to axe her charcter due to the pregnancy, which they obviously cannot weave into their storyline. Even Jack was dropping hints for the past two weeks that she was in trouble with the bosses at the network.

This is how THEY wrote the Constitution and this is how THEY put it into practice what they themselves had written.

I think the document speaks for itself, to wit, "We the People ... do establish and ordain ..." There's no mention of "higher powers" or "god given rights" to govern as king etc, etc. In fact, the first *amendment* (hint: not the original document) is the only place religion is mentioned at all.

The mistake many folks make is in conflating the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution (which is a much later document and the second attempt at forming a national government.)

PS: For such an 'awfully written show,' S60 seems to be sparking a lot of chatter. :)

No mistake here, you’re 100 percent correct. And since they knew what they wrote, we should take a cue from how THEY acted in the new government AFTER the Constitution was ratified. They did not govern with a impenetrable barrier between church and state. They governed with a blatant intermingling of religion and government, as they clearly understood their new Constitution allowed.

Many concepts of church and state were discussed during the writing of the Constitution, everything from a strict barrier between the two to no barrier at all. You can read their individual writings and see a wide spectrum of beliefs on the topic. However, what was AGREED upon is what was written and what we are bound by.

I don't think you can use a weaker argument. Why don't you just say it's "not natural" and be done with it. :rolleyes:

“Not natural” is not relevant. The law and the Constitution is relevant. If the argument is so weak than feel free to refute it.

Back OT....the whole “Jordan’s ex’s book scandal” storyline is just odd. Does anybody here know or care whether real life network presidents “like kids” or whatever.

They governed with a blatant intermingling of religion and government, as they clearly understood their new Constitution allowed.


Um, no; perhaps you're thinking of some other country. Can you provide any examples of this claim?

Many concepts of church and state were discussed during the writing of the Constitution, everything from a strict barrier between the two to no barrier at all. You can read their individual writings and see a wide spectrum of beliefs on the topic. However, what was AGREED upon is what was written and what we are bound by..

I'll buy that ... OTOH, I think they clearly intended that no one religion should become a defacto state religion. Clearly things like forcing children to pray (to an implied Christian deity), or forcing folks to acknowledge the "Big Ten" on their way into the courthouse, etc, etc, just might be contrary to the "original intent."

The real test is whether we can live up to the words and ideals we profess. I'd like to see how Congress will accomodate their first Muslim member's religious "duties." ;) :D

Oh well, we digress .... :)

Not to butt in on your fascinating religious discussions, but had a Q about the actual HD show - in the early posts, folks were guessing that this show was filmed in this style intentionally. Just was wanting to confirm that - on my set, it looks like upconverted SD. Not horrid, but nowhere nearly as clear as Leno. Or even Earl/Office. - can't compare to anything else, since that is about all I watch on NBC.

And a question, perhaps to Josh Z, or anyone else who would know - someone posted earlier that the show was filmed on 35mm - in that case, would it be better to deinterlace it with a film bias, or in the transfer, does that become a moot point?

On the plus side - it looks so mediocre on my setup, I can watch it and talk myself out of buying an HD-DVD player. Because sd dvds DO look sharper, cleaner thru my VP than this show does in native 1080i. :(

I don't think that's terribly far off; certainly it was a factor. However, times have changed. These days, it's been proven that children raised in a loving, stable, 2-parent household turn out just fine regardless of whether they have parents of differing sex or the same sex; and certainly no worse than the zillions of kids being raised in single-parent households. The objections to gay marriage are solely religious-based, and as such, have no place in a discussion that boils down to denying civil rights to a particular group in a secular republic like this one or the European democracies. This is just the last dying breath of discrimination, and it too shall pass. It'll just take a little longer because the objections are defined in religious terms instead of simple justice for all.

Arch, I don't think it was a factor. I think it was THE factor. The only thing that has changed is the degree to which society 'enforces' the 'requirement'. In recent decades, people realized that certain members of the 'tribe' (that few people had sympathy for) could be forced to pay a higher share of the burden to care for any abandoned female and child. This made it much easier to relax the societal pressure for marriage.

Arch, I don't think it was a factor. I think it was THE factor. The only thing that has changed is the degree to which society 'enforces' the 'requirement'. In recent decades, people realized that certain members of the 'tribe' (that few people had sympathy for) could be forced to pay a higher share of the burden to care for any abandoned female and child. This made it much easier to relax the societal pressure for marriage.

Stan, I'm sorry but I must confess that you lost me there. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. :o So, since we're talking about kids, let's just use this opportunity to get back on topic: how 'bout that Amanda Peet's lack of family planning! They've obviously got to work that into the plotline somehow since she's just going to get bigger and bigger and they just got a full-season order. Methinks this will take all of Sorkin's reputed brilliance to pull this one off. :D

Not to butt in on your fascinating religious discussions, but had a Q about the actual HD show - in the early posts, folks were guessing that this show was filmed in this style intentionally. Just was wanting to confirm that - on my set, it looks like upconverted SD. Not horrid, but nowhere nearly as clear as Leno. Or even Earl/Office. - can't compare to anything else, since that is about all I watch on NBC.

The first episode was by far the worst. That one looked no better than a VHS recording. Subsequent episodes have settled into an acceptable quality level, to my eye. But no, it's not one of the better-looking shows in HD. As to whether that's stylistic intent, I might be inclined to argue yes if it weren't for the fact that pretty much every scripted drama on NBC looks the same.

And a question, perhaps to Josh Z, or anyone else who would know - someone posted earlier that the show was filmed on 35mm - in that case, would it be better to deinterlace it with a film bias, or in the transfer, does that become a moot point?

I leave my VP50 scaler set for "Auto" deinterlace. Film Bias is probably appropriate, but with any broadcast show I find all sorts of little things that break the normal cadence pattern.

Um, no; perhaps you're thinking of some other country. Can you provide any examples of this claim?
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Prayer in school was an accepted and common place practice. The Ten Commandments were frequently displayed in courthouses including the Supreme Court, when it was still in the Capitol Building. If you cared, you could find many, many more explicit and implicit examples on your own. It’s really no secret....it’s history.

We can amend the Constitution if we would like change, and I think this is necessary and good at times, but let’s not pretend we’re “discovering” the framers intent when we arbitrarily want to change the status quo.

OT, yes, not the best looking show and yes Peete will continue to grow. Perhaps they are laying the foundation for her absence, dismal, or pregnancy. Also, was the sketch with the Asian lady in curlers suppose to be funny or just offensive?

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Prayer in school was an accepted and common place practice. The Ten Commandments were frequently displayed in courthouses including the Supreme Court, when it was still in the Capitol Building. If you cared, you could find many, many more explicit and implicit examples on your own. It’s really no secret....it’s history.


While that's an interesting and colorful "snapshot" of life in the capital back in those days, I guess what I was referring to is that I'm not sure that religion became co-mingled with policy decisions like we're seeing today vis a vis such issues as the aforementioned gay marriage issue, the abortion debate, faith-based federal funding, prayer in schools and resistance to teaching of evolution, etc. Those are all issues that the religious right pushes hard at the federal level when "their" party is in power. I expect it to sort of calm down now for at least the next couple of years. Perhaps there was just as much blurring of the line between church and state back in those days; I've just never read much about it.

I was wondering if they were going to axe her charcter due to the pregnancy, which they obviously cannot weave into their storyline. Even Jack was dropping hints for the past two weeks that she was in trouble with the bosses at the network.

Wouldn't that be something. Sorkin is trying to increase our tolerance for issues like gay marriage through his show, yet he'd fire one of the stars because she was pregnant and starting a family. Man would that be a hoot. :)

And along the gay marriage lines, it's not all about religion - I'm pretty certain that businesses and insurance companies rail against it as well. You know, the legal dependants issues. Might be wrong though.

Wouldn't that be something. Sorkin is trying to increase our tolerance for issues like gay marriage through his show, yet he'd fire one of the stars because she was pregnant and starting a family. Man would that be a hoot. :)

Well, in fairness, I'm sure they didn't expect her to get herself knocked up immediately when they hired her to be "the babe". Give the show a year at least, Amanda, and they can figure out how to write it in. It's put Sorkin in a creative bind that he didn't expect. Unless, of course, it was him who put her "in a family way". ;)

And along the gay marriage lines, it's not all about religion - I'm pretty certain that businesses and insurance companies rail against it as well. You know, the legal dependants issues. Might be wrong though.

Never heard about that angle, but it sort of makes sense in a machiavellian kind of way. Maybe they're secretly funding the gay-marriage-ban movement in all those states where it's passing. :p

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington ....

Yes, yes .... but your missing the key phrases "--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. "

Plus I doubt (though I've not researched it) that federal tax dollars were supporting those prayers in school. I agree it was less of an issue when 99.9% of the european population practiced some variant of Christianity and most people barely finished 6th grade. :D Times have changed ...

PS: I'm still waiting for full implementation of the ideal that "all men were created equal." It's good to have goals, yes? :D

PPS: There is nothing in the Constitution that *mandates* school prayer, religious invocations or religious displays (i.e. the "Big Ten".) I can no longer opt out of mandatory K-12 education, visiting the courthouse, paying taxes etc ... OTOH, I can choose to ignore and walk by the numerous church doors (about one a city block around here.) Can you see the difference? If not, why not? :)

... which may "shock" some here. See this story "hot off the presses" Against Nature? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/) Of course, there are also documented species in which individuals spontaneously change sexes under certain enviromental stressors.

But no, it's not one of the better-looking shows in HD. As to whether that's stylistic intent, I might be inclined to argue yes if it weren't for the fact that pretty much every scripted drama on NBC looks the same.



I leave my VP50 scaler set for "Auto" deinterlace. Film Bias is probably appropriate, but with any broadcast show I find all sorts of little things that break the normal cadence pattern.

Thanks, Josh. I'll just put my 50 on Auto, let it do the thinking - I know on some sports broadcasts, putting it on VIDEO helps. - maybe it isn't picking up the cadence - I dunno, more technical than I fully understand.

Guess I'll agree on PQ - last night, Earl and The Office were less than stellar in pq - less grain than I saw on S60, but then again, I would imagine they go straight to video. Leno is still the best looking show on the peacock. imho. Thanks again.

Yes, yes .... but your missing.........
The point is that Jefferson did not consider state sanctioned Christian prayer on government property to be mandatory nor discriminatory nor unconstitutional. Of course there’s nothing in the Constitution that “mandates” school prayer, religious invocations or religious displays nor is there anything that specifically prohibits them. Prayer, invocations, and religious displays were commonplace in early American government and judiciary. If you’re really interested in this issue, you can search out the history on the topic.

Here’s a good example......federal tax dollars used to directly support churches through mandatory religion taxes. Our founders considered this Constitutional....would we today?

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

....legislators devised "general assessment schemes." Religious taxes were laid on all citizens, each of whom was given the option of designating his share to the church of his choice. Such laws took effect in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire and were passed but not implemented in Maryland and Georgia.
...proponents of a general religious tax, principally Anglicans, urged that it should be supported on "Principles of Public Utility" because Christianity offered the "best means of promoting Virtue, Peace, and Prosperity."

Again, I’m not advocating either way on the issue of religion. I’m just pointing out that the founders knew what they meant when they wrote the Constitution, as evidenced by their actions. We are not bound to continue as they did in early America. They gave us processes by which to make change through legislation and amendment. But it’s dishonest to misrepresent their interpretation of the Constitution to fit ours.

I'm going back On Topic. Anyone feel free to PM Off Topic, if they wish.

I love that a TV show even its diehard fans consider isn't clicking on all cylinders can generate such impassioned and educated posts as the previous one's about the division between state and religion. Sorkin is an acquired taste but those of us for a taste of his writing are definitely the Kool Aid drinking variety. :)

I love that a TV show even its diehard fans consider isn't clicking on all cylinders can generate such impassioned and educated posts as the previous one's about the division between state and religion.

And civil, with good humor! And no need for moderation! Congrats are in order to all who participated in this interesting O.T. discussion; I know I learned a few things. If the discussion leads O.T., this is the way it ought to be done. :)

Congratulations from me, too.

Yes, thank you to all.

I enjoy Sorkin’s writing style very much and I generally like the show, but I’m definitely not a Kool-Aid drinker. My main complaint with the show is that some, not all, of Sorkin’s “statements” are made in such an obviously contrived and unlikely manner so as to detract from the overall quality of the show.

Discussion on issues is a positive byproduct of shows like S60 or TWW. Based on the way Mr. Sorkin presents his POV, I’m guessing we would prefer we just accept his ideas as gospel, rather than discussing the relative merits and weaknesses of the position. But then I also think he knows that debate will occur. :)

And civil, with good humor! And no need for moderation! Congrats are in order to all who participated in this interesting O.T. discussion; I know I learned a few things. If the discussion leads O.T., this is the way it ought to be done. :)

LOL ... It may shock many of you to find that I basicly agree with arch-Conservative Cal Thomas's take on seperation of church and state. :)

The point is that Jefferson did not consider state sanctioned Christian prayer on government property to be mandatory nor discriminatory nor unconstitutional.

There's a big difference between allowing a voluntary religious service on public property, during off-business hours and making the "heathen" acknowledge the Christian idolatry of the "Big Ten" display on his way into the courthouse, or making the "heathen child" stand by while the "righteous" have there public moment of prayer . :D

But still, what's next? Muslim Friday prayers ... Jewish sabbath service ... Wiccan rituals ... Scientology "purification." Where do you draw the line at allowing this so-called "non-discriminatory, voluntary" use of public property. :)

That *our* predecessors "created and ordained" a religion neutral document (as well as eventually discontinuing these more onerous intrusions on religious liberty spoken about above) just might be a clue ... or not as the case may be. :D

There's a big difference between allowing a voluntary religious service on public property, during off-business hours and making the "heathen" acknowledge the Christian idolatry of the "Big Ten" display on his way into the courthouse, or making the "heathen child" stand by while the "righteous" have there public moment of prayer . :D
But your ignoring the fact that this if precisely the type of behavior that DID happen in the early years of the Republic. I’m not suggesting that we return to it, I’m asking that we honestly assess the founders interpretation of the Constitution by studying their behavior under it.
But still, what's next? Muslim Friday prayers ... Jewish sabbath service ... Wiccan rituals ... Scientology "purification." Where do you draw the line at allowing this so-called "non-discriminatory, voluntary" use of public property. :)
It’s not where I would draw the line. It’s where the founders intended the line be drawn. They’re the one’s who honored so called Sunday “blue laws” amongst others. If these laws should be unconstitutional, why did the founders write and obey them?
That *our* predecessors "created and ordained" a religion neutral document (as well as eventually discontinuing these more onerous intrusions on religious liberty spoken about above) just might be a clue ... or not as the case may be. :D
It is a denomination neutral document. YOU may interpret it to be a religion neutral document, but our founders clearly behaved to the contrary.

It is a denomination neutral document. YOU may interpret it to be a religion neutral document, but our founders clearly behaved to the contrary.

Perhaps ... but they also said, "All men are created equal" and you've undoubtedly seen how well that has worked so far. ;) And there is that pesky, 'no religious test shall be required' clause ... which I forgot about until someone else brought it up.

Our choice is to have an inclusive society or an "Us vs. Them" society. Which is more likely to stand the test of time.? I'm sure "good intentions" are meant, but whenever somebody yells "school prayer" or "post the Big Ten" all I hear and feel is "Kid, we don't want yer kind 'round here" And frankly I don't deserve that kind of treatment after serving 121 months (not that I was counting :D) ) in the USAF.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just presenting one view. :)

LOL ... It may shock many of you to find that I basicly agree with arch-Conservative Cal Thomas's take on seperation of church and state. :)



:eek: Our local fishwrap publishes that guy on the op/ed page from time to time. After I read one of his columns I usually feel like I need to wash my eyes out with soap. :D

Too controversial for me...now let's get back to discussing the black card ;-)

Perhaps ... but they also said, "All men are created equal" and you've undoubtedly seen how well that has worked so far. ;) And there is that pesky, 'no religious test shall be required' clause ... which I forgot about until someone else brought it up.

Our choice is to have an inclusive society or an "Us vs. Them" society. Which is more likely to stand the test of time.? I'm sure "good intentions" are meant, but whenever somebody yells "school prayer" or "post the Big Ten" all I hear and feel is "Kid, we don't want yer kind 'round here" And frankly I don't deserve that kind of treatment after serving 121 months (not that I was counting :D) ) in the USAF.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just presenting one view. :)

Thank you for your point of view. I’m all for equality and religious tolerance. Just understand that if we accomplish these ideals by skirting the Constitution, then they will not be protected by the Constitution. Future generations can and will feel free to “reinterpret” the Constitution as loosely as we do, and in a manner that justifies their behavior.

:eek: Our local fishwrap publishes that guy on the op/ed page from time to time. After I read one of his columns I usually feel like I need to wash my eyes out with soap. :D

Me too ... hence my amazement at actually agreeing with him on at least one topic. :D

Just understand that if we accomplish these ideals by skirting the Constitution, then they will not be protected by the Constitution.

The question is, who's skirting the Constitution ... ;) :D

All this is great boys and girls - the hugging, the kissing, the civil discourse - but none of it changes that fact that Studio 60 has been THE biggest disappointment of the TV season for me. I keep saying to myself, "One more show then that's it" and since tonight's is probably the last original one for a few weeks (I'm assuming since it's Holiday time, so correct me if I'm wrong) it's the last chance. I really want to enjoy it instead of spending 45 minutes gnashing my teeth over what it could have been. Come on Sorkin, give us a great episode tonight.

but none of it changes that fact that Studio 60 has been THE biggest disappointment of the TV season for me. ....

Humm ... well I think part of the problem is all about "expectations." Either folks had none, expected impossibly lofty goals, or had pre-conceived negative expectations.

I suspect those in the "none" category have enjoyed every episode (albeit perhaps not as a "A List" show.) :) There are certainly much worse entertainment options out there.

I had no expectations. I've enjoyed every show. And it's "A List" to me.

Now, let's get down to business.
"The 30 minute writing format vs the 40 second format"?

I can deduce that the "30 minute format" denotes sitcoms. But it's the "40 second format" for sketch shows that I don't get. The sketches aint 40 seconds in length.
So what does that mean exactly?

Much better episode tonight - more depth to the plot.

I had no expectations. I've enjoyed every show. And it's "A List" to me.

Now, let's get down to business.
"The 30 minute writing format vs the 40 second format"?

I can deduce that the "30 minute format" denotes sitcoms. But it's the "40 second format" for sketch shows that I don't get. The sketches aint 40 seconds in length.
So what does that mean exactly?

I think it was 30 SECOND page vs 40 second page. Same amount of pages adds up to more time....

They said 40 second page....not that anyone would understand what that meant - as shown here from the above comments.

They write where every page is equal to 40 seconds - Roughly 10 seconds to 3 complete lines on paper (and before you tell me there are more than 12 lines on a page, not all were complete lines and there is heavy spacing between lines).

They were 37 seconds short and Jessica had to fill - because 1 page was left out - which was found on the writers desk.

Sort of like the Black American Express - most couldn't put it together which is why they need to get it to where J6P can understand wtf they are talking about.

They said 40 second page....not that anyone would understand what that meant - as shown here from the above comments.

They write where every page is equal to 40 seconds - Roughly 10 seconds to 3 complete lines on paper
Interesting. That explains the "40 second" part.
Well sorta anyway.

What about the alternative? Did he say 30 seconds or was it 30 minutes?
And why 40 seconds (as opposed to any other figure)? What is the significance of that unit of time in relation to the television program?