This week's episode was really poor, easily the show's worst. Extremely trite and amateurish drama. I really want this show to be better than it is, but it feels like Sorkin is drowning.

That said, the picture quality was noticeably better than the last couple of weeks. Not "good" HD by any means, but not 4th-generation VHS dupe bad as we'd been getting.

This week's episode was really poor, easily the show's worst. Extremely trite and amateurish drama. I really want this show to be better than it is, but it feels like Sorkin is drowning.

That said, the picture quality was noticeably better than the last couple of weeks. Not "good" HD by any means, but not 4th-generation VHS dupe bad as we'd been getting.

while I didn't think it was the worst, it didn't make me sit up and pay attention. I liked the general chaos of the show during production in the flashbacks. They should have more of that in the actual show as it is now. Rather than the way it's largely ignored week to week in favor of Matt and Danny pining for their women.

The whole pill addiction/Fight Club element I didn't like. Especially since we already have Danny as the drug addict and another major character on TV with a pill addiction. It's just all too familiar as other scenes in recent weeks have been.

I thought the PQ was slightly improved as well, but I thought it might just have been my eyes.

It isn't officially cancelled (although its future doesn't look good) - but if it is, you can't blame NBC. They hyped/promoted the hell out of this show, moved it from the timeslot opposite Grey's Anatomy, gave it a premium slot in the schedule and left it there despite poor ratings. Not much more you can ask.

Blame all of the viewers who didn't tune in.

oh come on, we both know its "canceled"...its only a matter of time before they actually announce it...

and yes, I will blame the dumb American public for not watching...we need less dumb Americans and ones that can follow a plot that lasts longer than 60 minutes....I'm surprised all networks haven't dropped the extremely expensive shows with actual story arcs in favor of the cheaper reality programming....its funny, because this is the same exact storyline thats going on in Studio 60...think Sorkin is tellin us something?

This show continues to amaze me in wasted potential. I still watch it (even knowing now the end is near) almost like being too fascinated by a car wreck to look away. So much wrong, so little time to explain. But how did they manage to take the 2 supposedly strongest and most interesting and intricate characters (Perry and Bradford) and turn them into simpering wimps either sickly stalking a pregnant woman or whimpering over the one that got away? Pathetic. This latest was no better, though the flashback story was at least somewhat cleverly done.

I'm surprised all networks haven't dropped the extremely expensive shows with actual story arcs in favor of the cheaper reality programming.

FOX tried it several seasons ago. It bombed royally. If I remember correctly, that was also the season American Idol debuted. Can anyone recall what other reality shows debut that same season? On ANY network? I can't.

The only reality shows that have gone on to be what networks love; long lasting ratings grabbers with little cost are Survivor, but its days are numbered, Millionaire, which has been relegated to syndication now, Amazing Race, but it's numbers have never been "really up there" and they are falling. Big Brother, but I would be surprised if it goes much beyond a season or two (when a show does an All Star, it is either gasping last breath or have run out of new ideas and either way, it usually isn't long for this world) and of course Idol which seems to only grow bigger each season much to the surprise of everyone, including Simon Cowell, truth be known.

I think every US network has brought every big European reality show to the US and 95% of them fail within the first 5 episodes (many within the first 1 or 2). Reality is one of those things that you can have too much of pretty quickly.

and yes, I will blame the dumb American public for not watching...we need less dumb Americans and ones that can follow a plot that lasts longer than 60 minutes....
I was thrilled by the pilot despite ripping off the classic speech from "Network". It was wonderfully directed and photographed and best of a ll, it promised to show us the internal workings of a real television network written by people who knew all about it. Unlike other "dumb Americans", I've read a few books on network television. I think Ken Auletta's Three Blind Mice (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Blind-Mice-Networks-Their/dp/039456
3581) is a classic book on how mixed up television networks operated (I'm sure they're all well run now ;) ) This show looked like it was going to explode with controversy.

Instead of making good on this promise, they showed us almost nothing about how a television network operates or how it affects a television show. The characters acted more like clueless teenagers than professional adults. I had to watch Matt and Harriet act like jilted junior high school lovers. I had to watch moralizing subplots like the Commie blacklist thing (did you know that was a bad bad thing???) that had nothing to do with television today. I had to watch secondary characters that made no sense (my hair stylist in her 20's knows what "Who's on First?" is but two people in their 50's had never heard of it???). I saw people on the show laughing at things that were very very unfunny (and fans of the show telling me they weren't supposed to be funny???). I saw obvious signs of lazy writing like a suit of armor materializing right when Matt needed to make a disturbance (is Sorkin a fan of Looney Tunes???).

Every week the show within the show seemed less like a real show, NBS seemed less like a real network and the characters seemed less like real people, helped by Sorkin's trademark (and needless) machine gun dialog delivery. It chose to make network television look like some kind of silly screwball comedy, a victim of external pressures (like the media) instead of its own incompetence (read the Ken Auletta book if you want to know what that's about). It didn't have the guts to bite the hand that was feeding it $3 million an episode.

The master speaks! :)

From Fredfa's Hot Off the Press! thread on this forum.

Critic’s Notebook
“Studio 60” Won't Pander
No Creative Changes Just To Boost Ratings
By Roger Catlin Hartford Courant TV Critic

BURBANK, Calif. -- As Aaron Sorkin sits at the long table for the head writers of his show within a show, it might be a scene from some future episode of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip":

The press comes calling, and the vaunted show-runner defends himself.

Either way, Sorkin looks very much at home at a table littered with magazines, paper clips, water bottles and the detritus of coaxing creativity from writers.

It's at the edge of what is a large, multistory set seen in the NBC drama - a late-night network sketch show that looks like "Saturday Night Live," but as if shot in an old theater on the West Coast.

"It's served us really well," says Sorkin of the set.

Well, sort of well.

After being hailed as the most promising new show of the new season by a number of publications (including this one), "Studio 60" hasn't attracted the numbers or attention of his last project, "The West Wing," or even "Heroes," the comic-book-style show that precedes "Studio."

"I'm not sophisticated when it comes to crunching the numbers and analyzing the audience," Sorkin says. "But I can tell you this: Our audience is 10 percent bigger than you think it is."

It's the kind of brash phrase you'd imagine his counterpart, Matt Albie (Matthew Perry), would say in "Studio 60." But Sorkin persists.

"We're the No 1 time-shifted show on television," he says. "When you add the number of people who are recording the show and watching later in the week, the audience grows by over 10 percent - 10.9 percent."

Even so, the whole numbers thing has to be taken in context.

"When I compare the size of the `Studio 60' audience to the size of the `Sports Night' audience, I'm delighted," Sorkin says, referring to his late-'90s series.

"Would we like to have more people watching it?" he says. "Of course we would. But we're really happy with the audience that is watching it."

He reels off the numbers (just as Albie had earlier in the season about his show), about how upscale the audience is.

But there is a downside to such riches, Sorkin says. "Because it is a high-end audience, they all own TiVos." Hence, the hidden 10 percent.

As for getting a lot more people watching, "There isn't a lot we can do creatively," he says. And even if he could, "I think it's a mistake to do things creatively in order to attract that audience."

Even so, the show has been concentrating almost exclusively in recent episodes on romantic story lines.

"Hopefully, that is going to bring some people who wouldn't have otherwise been interested in the show," Sorkin says. But he insists the shift in emphasis wasn't done to bring in more people.

"The romantic comedy was intended all along," he says, nor was it suggested by the network, which he describes as "supportive as you could possibly imagine."

"It was really meant to be somewhat at its core a romantic comedy," NBC President Kevin Reilly says of "Studio 60."

At the same time, Reilly adds, "Aaron likes social relevance, pop-culture references, political references [and] being smart on the fly - and I think that's what really the true fans of the show love."

The network has promised a full season for the struggling show, averaging 9 million viewers. But it will take a break March 5 to make way for another series, "The Black Donnellys."

"Studio 60," from the start, might have been hobbled by high expectations.

"I'm very proud that there were, and are still, high expectations," Sorkin says. "It's not an advantage, though."

Says Sarah Paulson, who plays Harriet Hayes: "Basically saying this is the show of all shows, there's nowhere to go but down from there. There's no possible way to live up to that hype."

That leads to bad press, first about the ratings, and then stories that really rile Sorkin - newspapers quoting Internet bloggers dismissing the show.

"I do believe we've seen an enormous rise of amateurism," he says of the Internet slagging. "Everybody's voice oughtn't be equal."

But how does he feel about occasional complaints from legit critics that the show is smug or its sketches aren't funny?

"It's the cost of doing business. You get used to it," Sorkin says. "But I get it. I get when people write there's smugness to the show, there's an arrogance to the show. I get when people write that the characters on the show take television too seriously. Again, it's not fun to read. I don't necessarily agree with it."

He says he never intended to fill his shows with laughs from the occasional sketches. He meant to show only very brief scenes from the sketch show to indicate what they do - "the way, on `Sports Night,' we'd do a few seconds of news or, on `West Wing,' there'd be a few moments of chatter about the Council of Economic Advisers."

Besides, he says, "If you saw a random 10 seconds of `Wayne's World' or the Coneheads or any `SNL' sketch, you'd say you wouldn't think it was funny. You probably wouldn't get it.

Director and longtime Sorkin collaborator Thomas Schlamme says that showing the mechanics of comedy necessarily removes the laughs. "We're showing the magic. And the magic trick is not going to be that exciting once it's shown."

"I want to make it clear," Sorkin says of his drama, "you're not supposed to be finding it funny."

As for the smugness, Paulson says, "I think it's that thing where people don't feel like they're being talked down to."

"And I think he doesn't do that," she says of Sorkin, who writes all the scripts. "He speaks as if people know what a reference to Strindberg means. And if you don't know what Strindberg means, you might decide what we're doing is arrogant."

Why "change the show for people who don't know who Strindberg is? Because it means more people will watch?" Paulson says.

For now, the ensemble cast is enjoying the romantic turns, even when they're fraught with problems, as with Bradley Whitford's character, Danny Tripp, falling for TV executive Jordan McDeere, played by Amanda Peet.

"I love the complexity of the connection with Amanda," says Whitford, who earned an Emmy in "The West Wing," playing Josh Lyman. "I'd like to see more of that personal stuff bleeding down to the crew."

And if it's complex, well, sometimes that's how things are.

"When you fall in love when you're younger, it's so much more simple," says Peet, whose character is, as she is, pregnant. "When you have two people who are in really complicated careers, and you're older, and you're at the end of your child-bearing years, things become real complicated, and I think that it's very real."

http://www.ctnow.com/tv/hce-studio60.artfeb14,0,4442701,print.story?coll=hce-headlines-tv

As for getting a lot more people watching, "There isn't a lot we can do creatively," he says. And even if he could, "I think it's a mistake to do things creatively in order to attract that audience."

Excellent. This is why I love Sorkin.

Funny, it looks like all the issues brought up by the whiners on this thread are addressed in the article. Sorry guys, guess it's back to the drawing board!

Yeah, except that "it's not suposed to be funny" foolishness. If Sorkin could make those three seconds of a sketch funny, you better damn well believe he would. No show-runner in the history of television has ever turned to their writing room and demanded an unfunny joke for inclusion in the next episode.

The master speaks! :)

From Fredfa's Hot Off the Press! thread on this forum.

Critic’s Notebook
“Studio 60” Won't Pander
No Creative Changes Just To Boost Ratings


"And I think he doesn't do that," she says of Sorkin, who writes all the scripts. "He speaks as if people know what a reference to Strindberg means. And if you don't know what Strindberg means, you might decide what we're doing is arrogant."

Why "change the show for people who don't know who Strindberg is? Because it means more people will watch?" Paulson says.


This is commendable in the creative sense, but this is commercial TV, the whole point is to get more people to watch. Without the audience to support the ads, there is no show.

So "it's a romantic comedy" that "you aren't supposed to find funny".

If that's the direction they're heading, it's no wonder the show is less interesting than it was near the beginning of the season.

Without the audience to support the ads, there is no show.

I'd rather have no show than a crappy show. And since it's obvious it won't get renewed next season no matter what, what reason does he have to try to change the show now?

So "it's a romantic comedy" that "you aren't supposed to find funny".

You should probably reread the article. He clearly says he doesn't want the sketches to be particularly funny.

He says he never intended to fill his shows with laughs from the occasional sketches. He meant to show only very brief scenes from the sketch show to indicate what they do - "the way, on `Sports Night,' we'd do a few seconds of news or, on `West Wing,' there'd be a few moments of chatter about the Council of Economic Advisers."

The sketches being unfunny never really bothered me. My primary criticism early on was having the show become instantly successful instead of letting us watch how they turned things around. But then again, I'm not really interested in a romantic comedy - I'm more into the behind-the-scenes mechanics and drama.

Does anybody else think this is a show that would have benefited from a 13 episode season on HBO/Showtime?

More realism in the relationships, the off-air language, the boardroom scenes?

Not in the slightest, MRinDenver.

More skin and raunchy words wouldn't have any effect on "Studio 60" at all.

In your mind was "Deadwood" great because of the frequent use of the f-word -- or because of the spot-on writing and characterizations?

Bsed on my experience, the control room, relationships and board room scenes are all pretty close to reality -- f-bombs or no.

To me the problems are myriad, but boil down to the fact that people aren't really all that interested in investing their time in the "problems" faced by a bunch of pampered, highly-paid, behind the scenes people at a fictional network.

At least the problems "West Wing" dealt with had wide repercussions. In the end, IMO, this is a show which sounded great in the pitch meetings, but ultimately just couldn't deliver interesting, believable and compelling story lines week after week.

And I like it, a lot. :)

If you want to see how real characters can be made to be compelling in real situations (without profanity) in a network show, check out "Friday Night Lights".

It can be done, if rarely. It just wasn't -- or hasn't been so far -- with "Studio 60".

Nah, Sorkin doesn't seem to have the mean streak in him for use of foul language or violence (even the non-lethal one of a boardroom fight). And his two previous network shows prove he can do a good network TV program when the stars (and not just the actors that call themselves stars) align in his favor. Pay cable would only free 'Studio 60' of being shackled by the need to show a return for the network's heavy investment in a show opposite 'CSI: Miami.' Creatively I don't see 'Studio 60' being any different on HBO than it is now. Remember that HBO has indulged David Chase's fancy with a mid-season cliffhanger episode for 'The Sopranos' (Season 6 Pt. 1) that infuriated a lot of viewers and probably cost them viewers/subscribers. If 'Sopranos' were an OTA network show Chase would have been fired long ago for the slow pace at which he delivers the goods, but on HBO the meandering leisurely pace at which 'Studio 60' unfolds would be deemed an Aaron Sorkin vision worth not messing around with.

Maybe that's why Sorkin mentioned HBO by name in an early season episode as the alternative network to which that United Nations show pitch Jordan was interested in should have gone. He may have already been thinking about who'd pick-up 'Studio 60' if things didn't work out on NBC. :rolleyes:

Excellent. This is why I love Sorkin.

Funny, it looks like all the issues brought up by the whiners on this thread are addressed in the article. Sorry guys, guess it's back to the drawing board!

If by “addressed” you mean “acknowledged and ignored” by Sorkin then I agree. :)

If by “addressed” you mean “acknowledged and ignored” by Sorkin then I agree. :)
Of course I do! ;)

As disappointing as ther "Studio 60" ratings have been (and there is no denying that) NBC might be heartened by this fact: the show ranks a respectable 45th among all shows in the 18-49 season-to-date numbers, and tenth among all NBC shows. (On the flip side, those numbers were inflated by some far bigger early samplings.)

But in the S-T-D demo it handily beats all of NBC's reality shows (except the Thursday edition of "Deal Or No Deal" as well as such network stalwarts as "L&O: CI", "Medium", "Las Vegas" and "Crossing Jordan".

If by “addressed” you mean “acknowledged and ignored” by Sorkin then I agree. :)Of course I do! ;)
I guess time will tell whether that’s a successful strategy for this show. :)

As disappointing as ther "Studio 60" ratings have been (and there is no denying that) NBC might be heartened by this fact: the show ranks a respectable 45th among all shows in the 18-49 season-to-date numbers, and tenth among all NBC shows. (On the flip side, those numbers were inflated by some far bigger early samplings.)

But in the S-T-D demo it handily beats all of NBC's reality shows (except the Thursday edition of "Deal Or No Deal" as well as such network stalwarts as "L&O: CI", "Medium", "Las Vegas" and "Crossing Jordan".

Yep, but each episode of those NBC shows doesn't cost NBC close to $3 million a pop. An episode of Heroes costs less than 'Studio 60' but it makes-up its cost with one airing and then every repeat aftewards (and the eventual DVD sales) are all profit. With no repeat pipeline and only a "potential" for DVD sales in the future the money trail just doesn't stack-up in 'Studio 60's' favor (or Friday Night Light for that matter).

I am not making a case for "Studio 60". Just showing how a case COULD be made.

But the numbers have been headed downward almost since the first episode, so the S-T-D numbers are a little deceiving. And "Studio 60" is not at all a critical favorite anymore.

On the other hand, "Friday Night Lights" has seen its numbers slowly increase (and in the case of this week byh more than 16% week to week) AND the show is a major critical favorite.

Actually, it is relatively easy to make a case for "FNL".

There are no guarantees that whatever replaces it will do better, and it is a pretty safe bet that to replace it will cause a lot of negative press for NBC. The negative press in the case of a cancellation of "Studio 60" will mostly be aimed at Sorkin.

Yep, but each episode of those NBC shows doesn't cost NBC close to $3 million a pop. An episode of Heroes costs less than 'Studio 60' but it makes-up its cost with one airing and then every repeat aftewards (and the eventual DVD sales) are all profit. With no repeat pipeline and only a "potential" for DVD sales in the future the money trail just doesn't stack-up in 'Studio 60's' favor (or Friday Night Light for that matter).

Love to know what your source is for the relative costs of the various shows and its eventual profitability.

Love to know what your source is for the relative costs of the various shows and its eventual profitability.

None other than our own Fredfa's Hot Off the Press thread here on the HDTV Programming forum: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=440744. Numerous articles posted in Fred's column (from reliable publications like Broadcasting & Cable) peg the per-episode cost of 'Heroes' at $2.6 million (special effects shots and location shoots account for this) and 'Studio 60's' at 'over $3 million' (because of the star-studded cast and gigantic show-within-a-show soundstage).

Agreed, vfxproducer.

I would seriously doubt that "Heroes" makes back its costs in one airing. Few, if any, scripted shows can do that -- especially in their first season.

I would have to go back in the archives to check, but I don't recall NBC selling spots in "Heroes" at any great premium during last year's upfront.

I am sure they are more expensive now, but I am equally sure the commercials on "Studio 60" were priced far higher last summer and fall.

Love to know what your source is for the relative costs of the various shows and its eventual profitability.
Me too, I'd bet that FNL gets made for what it costs just to pay the 4 top stars and Sorkin on Studio 60.

Found it. Here's the USA Today article that Fredfa posted back in December in which the ad price and budget for Heroes is shown in comparison to gameshow Deal or No Deal. I couldn't find the story I remember that broke down the production costs of Studio 60 down to $3 million per episode, but that figure is mentioned in almost all news items about the show now that's headed into hiatus-ville.

The Business of TV
THE DRAMA VS. THE GAME SHOW
A look at the contrasting economics, per episode:
USA Today

Example: Deal or No Deal
Produced by: Endemol USA.
NBC's license fee of $1million covers the $700,000 production cost and prizes.
Major expenses:
Prize money (average $125,000)
Talent fees (Howie Mandel, models), staff
Physical production
Ad fee per 30-second spot: $165,000
Additional revenue: Endemol: Text-messaging (split with NBC); foreign sales. NBC: Online advertising.
Average viewers: 16.1 million*
Cost: $1 million

Example: Heroes
Produced by: NBC Studios. NBC network pays license fee of $1.3 million per episode; NBC Studios pays remaining production cost.
Major expenses:
Actors
Writers
Physical production
Special effects
Ad fee per 30-second spot: $260,000
Additional revenue: DVDs, foreign sales, cable and broadcast syndication.
Average viewers: 15.1 million
Cost: $2.7 million

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-12-17-gameshows_x.htm

So, if 'Heroes' has four :30 commercials per break ($260K times four equals $1.4 million) and there are four commercial breaks per show ($1.4 million times five equals $6 million) the production is covered. Of course 'Heroes' is one of the shows advertisers would like to use for NBC to "make good" on the ads for shows that underperformed (like 'Studio 60') so price fluctuation may lower the profit a tad. But even with NBC promos and local spots I still contend 'Heroes' makes its per-episode production cost with a new airing because its ratings (and 18-49 demos) are so high. Equally-expensive hour-long shows on NBC like the 'Law & Order' shows, 'Crossing Jordan' or 'Las Vegas' obvously can't cover their expenses when a new episode airs because their ratings/demos (and hence price per :30 ad) don't cover the production. Am I crazy or naive vfxproducer? :confused:

There's about 18 minutes of ads per hour show. Not sure of the national vs. local mix, but I'm sure it's well over 8 minutes per hour.

Me too, I'd bet that FNL gets made for what it costs just to pay the 4 top stars and Sorkin on Studio 60.
And with FNL you can see where the show's money is going: 100% location shoots (even the interior shots are real houses and buildings around Austin), a large cast, tons of extras (necessary for football games), and lots of post-production to edit the coverage from up to four simultaneous cameras to make what has to be the fastest cut show ever on television (over 800 cuts per episode!).

There's about 18 minutes of ads per hour show. Not sure of the national vs. local mix, but I'm sure it's well over 8 minutes per hour.


don't forget promotions for other shows....typically networks (at least Discovery where I work) sets aside 10-15% for promotional content and non-ad-based content...sometimes up to 20%...

There's about 18 minutes of ads per hour show. Not sure of the national vs. local mix, but I'm sure it's well over 8 minutes per hour.
I think the locals get around 2:30 at the midpoint and around 1:30 elsewhere. If they don't do seemless to the next show, they get about 1:30 at the end. So, I believe local avail is 5-6 minutes per hour.

So, you start with a total of 18 minutes:

- 6 minutes for local avail = 12 minutes
- 5 minutes for network promos = 7 minutes total network commercial time.

So: $260,000 X 7 = $1,820,000

One thing to remember, is the locals often get a share of the network adverts.

Here's another newspaper TV writer that, like Roger Catlin from the Hartford Courant, went back to his notes from the TCA Tour last January and made a story out of old quotes to go with the recent news of 'Studio 60's' early trip to hiatusville. From Fredfa's Hot Off the Press thread:

Critic’s Notebook
Why so low?
“Studio 60, a ‘Sure’ hit struggles to find viewers
By Joanne Weintraub Milwaukee Journal Sentinel TV critic

Up in the bleachers sat Matthew Perry, surrounded by a dozen or so journalists poking tape recorders in his face.

Down on the stage, other members of the large cast, including Bradley Whitford, Sarah Paulson and D.L. Hughley, walked around doing interviews with two or three people at a time. Amanda Peet, whose baby is due in March, did her interviews from a director's chair.

Holding court in the writers' room, meanwhile, was Aaron Sorkin, creator, head writer and guiding spirit of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip."

The occasion was a "grab-and-gab" for TV critics - find a star, pop a question - on the set of the NBC freshman series last month. And the question that kept rearing its head, between the ones about characters and subplots and the expansive, multilevel set itself, was: How did a talent-rich, expensively produced, seemingly surefire show wind up in 76th place in the ratings?

Coming from Sorkin and director Thomas Schlamme, the team behind the seven-year NBC hit "The West Wing," with a cast headed by "West Wing's" Whitford and "Friends' " Perry, "Studio 60" was one of the most anticipated new series of the season.

But the show's audience, which numbered more than 13 million when it debuted in September, has dwindled to little more than half that, with an estimated 7 million viewers for last week's episode.

And all but the most committed of those fans might acknowledge that, while the cast shines and the writing reflects Sorkin's sharp wit and flair for the dramatic moment, the plots can be far-fetched and the characters too often uniformly, maddeningly glib.

"Studio 60" takes place behind the scenes of a sketch comedy show with a not-so-slight resemblance to "Saturday Night Live."

It's a setting that would seem to be as full of possibilities as the Oval Office, yet the show hasn't taken hold with either fans or critics the way "The West Wing" quickly did.

Sorkin maintained that there's only one way to handle that response: Ignore it.

"Whether the show is a smash hit or it's struggling, you've got to write the show you planned on writing," he said.

"Would we like more people to (watch) the show? You bet. (But) I think it's a mistake to do things creatively to attract that audience."

Perry - who plays a compulsively wisecracking, frequently self-lacerating writer-producer modeled on Sorkin himself - sounded a similar note: If you believe in what you're doing, you try not to worry about the ratings.

"We were unbelievably highly touted when the show came out, and we were working 15 hours a day to try to live up to it," he said. "Then the ratings weren't that great, but we're still working 15 hours a day. . . . It's what you do."

One change that Sorkin said had been in his plans from the beginning is the increasing place of romance in the plots.

Where the scripts in the show's early months tended to focus on creative struggles among the writers or power plays involving the network, the emphasis has shifted to the point where this week's episode earned the breathless on-air promotion: "Tonight on 'Studio 60 . . . ' Hook-ups! Break-ups . . . !"

Perry's character and the actress played by Paulson are unable to stop lashing out at each other after a notably prolonged and messy split.

Whitford's Danny, the sketch show's executive producer, recently declared his love for the network executive played by Peet, who is single and pregnant - but not by Danny.

For Whitford, whose "West Wing" character was prone to long bouts of romantic deprivation, Danny's ardor - recently if belatedly reciprocated by Peet's Jordan - has been a nice change.

"It's been a blast," said the actor, who grew up in Madison and is married to Milwaukee native Jane Kaczmarek ("Malcolm in the Middle").

"I love the complexity of (Danny and Jordan's relationship), and the stakes underneath it.

"The problem with romantic stuff is that it (can) be fairly juvenile. You rarely get to deal with the grown-up stakes behind people connecting. And (with Jordan pregnant), you have to."

The stakes are high, too, for "Studio 60."

Starting Feb. 26, the show goes on hiatus for an indefinite period to make room for a midseason starter, "The Black Donnellys," a drama from Oscar winner Paul Haggis ("Crash," "Million Dollar Baby").

NBC President Kevin Reilly told critics last month that he was a fan of "Studio 60" and believed it deserved the time to find a larger audience. But his patience with the show, which reportedly costs the network a hefty $3 million an episode, isn't likely to be infinite.

Some other observations on the show from "Studio 60" cast members:

• Perry (who plays producer Matt Albie), on the series' backstage setting: "The world of people who are in charge of creating comedy and are that serious about it is a very bent place . . . sometimes a dark place. That's what I like about it."

• Peet (who plays network executive Jordan McDeere), on what she finds most interesting about her character: "She's a young woman in a position of power, and people always question how someone like that got to where she is. She also has a lot of charisma, which (raises the question of ) whether or not you can use that sort of charisma and flair to get things done."

• Hughley (who plays writer Simon Stiles), on director Schlamme's signature "walk-and-talks," notoriously hard-to-shoot scenes where characters converse while moving quickly around the set: "I don't like to see my name on (one of those scenes) in the script. If you flub a word, if the cameraman didn't get it right, if you didn't hit your mark - it's always a long night."

• Paulson (who plays show-within-a-show actress Harriet Hayes), on walk-and-talks: "I always feel that I don't know why (the character) is walking somewhere. It doesn't feel natural to me. I'm always the one who says I don't want to do it, but since I'm not powerful or famous (she laughs) I have to do it anyway."

• Steven Weber (who plays network executive Jack Rudolph), on Sorkin's fast-paced dialogue: "It's challenging to say. People don't always speak with the depth that he writes. . . . One thing that this show isn't is easy, and that's a good thing."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=566080&format=print

One thing to remember, is the locals often get a share of the network adverts.

Network comp is dead.

One thing to remember, is the locals often get a share of the network adverts.

Not in the last 20 plus years.

From Fredfa's Hot Off the Press column:

Critic’s Notebook
Indefinite hiatus
By Doug Elfman Chicago Sun-Times Television Critic February 18, 2007

Of all the TV shows that debuted in the fall, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" was the best bet to be a critics' darling and a hit. It was created by the makers of "The West Wing." Surely enough "West Wing" fans would give it the ratings to stay on the air.

But more viewers abandon it every week, and after Monday's episode NBC is sending it on indefinite hiatus.

What went wrong with "Studio 60"? The sex, the lack of sex, and the long and drawn-out relationships between potential couples are what's killing this show.

Despite the "West Wing" credentials of lead writer Aaron Sorkin and director Thomas Schlamme, "Studio 60" has been drawing the most typical kinds of TV couple conflicts.

A few weeks ago, two characters -- Matt (Matthew Perry) and Harriet (Sarah Paulson) -- were going through their 14th episode of trying to mend a broken romantic relationship. But Harriet kept finding artificial reasons to stay angry with Matt.

The show introduced a secondary, unrequited relationship between Jordan (Amanda Peet) and Danny (Bradley Whitford). They hooked up two weeks ago, but only after they got stuck on the roof of the "Studio 60" building for two episodes -- two! -- while another story line took two episodes -- two! -- to deal with a loose snake in the building.

If those two relationships haven't been belabored enough, a third was started between a guy who lied about having to cancel a date with a woman. He didn't have to lie; he canceled because of a work obligation. This caused severely idiotic arguments between him and her.

It doesn't help "Studio 60" that's it's an unfunny drama about the inner workings of a a TV sketch-comedy show akin to "Saturday Night Live."

D.L. Hughley, a comedian and actor who plays a sketch performer on the show, says working with "Studio's" happy cast is a joy. But he acknowledges the show's seriousness may puzzle potential viewers.

"When you say 'drama,' it automatically has a connotation that it's gonna be heavy," he says. "We're doing a show about comedy. That confuses people.

"What I like about '30 Rock' [the NBC comedy about an "SNL"-type show] is it's just a whimsical, fun thing people respond to."

Last week, "30 Rock" star Tina Fey took a jab at "Studio 60," comparing it to the outfit she wore at the Writers Guild Awards. "I hear Aaron Sorkin is in Los Angeles," she said, "wearing the same dress -- but longer, and not funny."

Hughley says if "Studio 60" survives, it will do so by ignoring expectations of contradictory critics -- some named it a top show of 2006; Entertainment Weekly named it the worst of the year.

"I became a funnier comic when I stopped believing [audience members] had to laugh," Hughley says. "It's gonna be incumbent upon us to do a show we believe in, and take off all the expectations and all the extra bull----, and do what we think is great."

It must be frustrating for the actors to be in this situation, working for the esteemed Sorkin on a show that should be better and better-watched. (Although it is getting better; last week's couples-centric episode was the season's best.)

Peet portrays a network TV executive, with a likable intensity, and she credits Sorkin for making her character real-ish.

"He's so good at avoiding cliches," Peet says. "Every time you think she's going to be the power woman, or the bitchy femme fatale ... it never [goes that way]. Whenever it leans that way," he bends in a different direction.

"If I could stay with Aaron Sorkin for the rest of my days, I'd be a happy camper," Peet says.

But odds are low "Studio 60" will weather a hiatus. Starting Feb. 26, NBC will fill the 10 PM ET/PT Monday slot with "The Black Donnellys," another critically notable series.

The impressionist

It was partly by default that Sarah Paulson earned the "Studio 60" part of Harriet Hayes, the Christian-centric sketch comedian. At tryouts, the candidates were supposed to do impressions, but "none of the other actresses did it," Paulson says.

"I took out my bobby pins and started to imitate Juliette Lewis in my audition. And I could see them sort of recoil in their chairs after I took out a prop, [as if] they thought, 'Oh gosh, she's gonna do an impression of her Aunt Fern. ... That's not gonna be funny.'"

Paulson, 32, is the surprise standout in NBC's non-hit. She was nominated for best supporting actress at this year's Golden Globes.

At a moment's notice, Paulson can pretend-voice Juliette Lewis, Annette Bening, Julia Roberts and a dolphin, among others.

"I do a lot of women. I don't do a lot of men," she says.

What makes Paulson's work special isn't just mimicry skills, but her human portrayal of Harriett as a strong-willed woman who is no stereotype. Despite a part that's not always well written, she's kept relationship-conflicted Harriett spiritually likable, and neither whiny nor overbearing.

"People are interested in seeing a Christian woman who can have a martini and talk about premarital sex. She doesn't think she's going to hell," Paulson says. (This is acting for Paulson: "I'm not religious, but I'm not not-religious. I don't go to church.")

They were ballyhooed, then bombed

The bigger they are, they faster they fall. "Studio 60" isn't the first TV show to start out with critical acclaim or network hype only to fall quickly by the wayside. Here's a recent look back at a few other huge losers:

• Just this fall, CBS' "Smith" starred Ray Liotta, Virginia Madsen, Simon Baker and Amy Smart in a series whose first episode felt like a riveting, character-based action movie about thieves. But it quickly started to go downhill. It couldn't retain viewers and it was axed in a few short weeks.

• "Commander in Chief" was the "Studio 60" of 2005. With Geena Davis starring as the U.S. president and Donald Sutherland portraying a crafty Republican senator, the drama took off like a rocket, critically and popularly. Davis won an Emmy, even. But viewers dropped off en masse after ABC forced out creator Rod Lurie for delivering scripts late. Replacement producer Steven Bochco ruined the feel of the series, and it was dead within the first season.

• Fox's "Wonderfalls" was compared favorably to CBS' "Joan of Arcadia," which managed to last two seasons. It was about a young woman who helped people after talking with animated objects, like stuffed bears. Fox dumped it after a few weeks, despite a fan-generated save-"Wonderfalls" campaign.

• In 2003, "Skin" offered Ron Silver as a porn producer in this soapy "Romeo and Juliet" drama in the vein of "The O.C." A few critics liked its sleek focus on porn and politics, but after much advertising, Fox pulled the plug after less than handful of installments.

• "The Fugitive" of 2000 was fast-paced, patterned like the movie and not like the '60s series. The CBS drama starred Tim Daly as Dr. Richard Kimble. It died. And last fall, Daly starred in "The Nine," yet another drama that was acclaimed (though I don't know why) but also was put on hiatus. Daly can't catch a break in the 2000s.

• Fox had the guts to put on "Profit," a quick-cult show about a villainous businessman, but cut the 1996 series when it couldn't cut it in the ratings chase. "Profit" had a budding star on its hands: Adrian Pasdar, later Natalie Maines' husband and now flying man Nathan in "Heroes."

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/elfman/261693,SHO-Sunday-elf18.articleprint

they could have summed that entire article in one sentence:

"Studio 60 canceled due to lack of audience"

Except the show isn't canceled yet lax01. It's on the razor's edge, but not out yet! :)

Not in the last 20 plus years.
It hasn't been that long - at least for ABC. Maybe 10-12 years, but that's the last time I worked for an affiliate. I can't really comment on NBC, but I was working under the assumption they'd be similar.

Thanks for the clarification, though.

I think you're right, NetworkTV.

The comp arrangements began to change when Fox got the CBS NFL contract -- beginning with the 1994 season -- and began a drastic overhaul of the comp deals between networks and affiliates.

Specifically, to help pay its $1.58 billion tab to the NFL, Fox started lowering the comp payments. Other networks soon joined in -- often to help pay for costly sports deals -- and by the end of the 90s comp was dead.

I think you're right, NetworkTV.

The comp arrangements began to change when Fox got the CBS NFL contract -- beginning with the 1994 season -- and began a drastic overhaul of the comp deals between networks and affiliates.

Specifically, to help pay its $1.58 billion tab to the NFL, Fox started lowering the comp payments. Other networks soon joined in -- often to help pay for costly sports deals -- and by the end of the 90s comp was dead.

Actually fredfa, that's when they started asking affiliates for payment to help subsidize it (by a number of methods, including giving up more local avails).

Is it me or is 'Studio 60's' hiatus getting way more ink than the premiere of many network shows (including its replacement 'The Black Donnelly's')? From Fredfa's Hot Off the Press thread:

Critic’s Notebook
Love — and rejection — is in the air at 'Studio 60'
By Robert Bianco USA Today

With Studio 60, maybe two strikes are enough.

This much-heralded NBC hour from Aaron Sorkin has been rejected twice by viewers, who were even less enthralled with its winter reincarnation as a romantic comedy than they were with its fall stint as a backstage drama. And now it's being rejected by its network, which is pulling the show after tonight's episode to make way for The Black Donnellys.

Yes, NBC says Studio will return this spring (though the network also said the show would run through February, and that's not happening), but the odds of it returning for a second season are long at best. And if these latest episodes are any indication of what the future holds, perhaps it's best if the future ends now.

Death would not come without mourning, but the grief would be more for the promise represented by Sorkin and a stellar cast led by Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford than for anything they produced. The hope was that the show would expand beyond its good but too inside-the-business start to encompass TV's effect on all of us, both those who make it and those who watch it. Instead, it collapsed upon itself, devoting hour after hour to its head writer's struggles — interrupted only by an FCC-inspired crisis far too patently absurd to support a continuing story.

As you should expect from the stellar talents involved, Studio has given us flashes of brilliance, but ultimately, it never gave us enough reason to care. The people working on the show-within-a-show had nothing at risk because the fictional Studio was a smash from the very start. And we as viewers had nothing at stake in that show's survival, because most of what we saw of it was terrible. You get the feeling this is what The Dick Van Dyke Show would have looked like had it been made with too much self-aggrandizing angst and by too few funny people.

Yet for all their problems, those early episodes did at least seem to have a point, as opposed to the weightless, painfully silly romantic comedy the show has become. The only rooting interest we can possibly have in these two misaligned couples, Matt and Harriet (Perry and Sarah Paulson) and Danny and Jordan (Whitford and Amanda Peet), is to root against them.

Indeed, it's hard to say which woman you cringe for more: Jordan, who is being chased by a man who shares her own near-psychotic attachment to being overly cute; or Harriet, who is being chased by a self-absorbed, egotistic addict who routinely mocks her most closely held beliefs.

The change in tone came about, of course, because viewers weren't interested enough in the story Sorkin originally wanted to tell, but can he really be interested in telling this one? If so, it's hard to fathom. It's coming across as little more than a desperate, flailing attempt to find something, anything, to keep the lights on.

And if that's the case, well, maybe it's better to just turn them off now.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2007-02-18-studio-60_x.htm

Critic’s Notebook
'Studio 60' flop humbles the mighty Sorkin
By Tim Goodman, San Francisco Chronicle February 19, 2007

Tonight might be the last episode of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," Aaron Sorkin's much-anticipated, then much-derided drama for NBC. The series, about the behind-the-scenes machinations of a television sketch show not unlike "Saturday Night Live," was pulled a week earlier than expected after its season-worst ratings performance. It's unlikely to be renewed for a second season. And if "Studio 60" comes back to finish its six remaining episodes, it will have everything to do with the respect accorded Sorkin and nothing to do with a last-ditch effort to save it.

In a freshman crop littered with failures, why is the demise of "Studio 60" so intriguing? Easy, it's Sorkin. He's an immensely talented writer who made television better with "Sports Night" and "The West Wing." And he made a pilot, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," that got people's blood pumping and piqued their interest in a way that only one other freshman pilot did. That pilot was "The Nine," and like "Studio 60," it never followed with an episode to match the first one and it, too, is now all but dead.

Anytime a home-run hitter like Sorkin swings the bat, people pay attention. But television is a business that makes a lot of people whiff. There was a time when anything Steven Bochco or David Kelley did brought viewers up on the edge of their seats in anticipation. Both men are still enormously respected, but until their next great hit -- which neither has delivered in some time -- they remain out of the stratosphere.

Now Sorkin joins them. Because no matter how long his die-hard fans -- and NBC -- hung in there, "Studio 60" didn't get better. In fact, it got far worse. Last week, "Studio 60" had its worst ratings, which is saying something for a series that never delivered eyeballs to NBC from the moment it appeared and was, unexpectedly, overshadowed by the dark horse hit "Heroes," which airs in the time slot just before.

Television is a cruel, ugly and bloody business. Nobody knows those trite truisms better than someone like Sorkin, who didn't need a failure of his own to know how things work in this world. In a twist so perfectly dramatic it's almost hard to believe, "Studio 60" is being replaced by "The Black Donnellys," from creator Paul Haggis, who has led a far more mercurial life as a television writer than Sorkin.

An A-list film writer and director ("Crash," "Million Dollar Baby," "Casino Royale," "Flags of Our Fathers," "Letters From Iwo Jima"), Haggis went from writing episodes for creatively bankrupt series such as "Diff'rent Strokes," "The Facts of Life," among others, to creating one of his own: "Walker, Texas Ranger." He also wrote for "Thirtysomething" and "L.A. Law," then created two series that broke the hearts of critics when they failed: "Due South" and "EZ Streets."

He and Sorkin share a reputation in the industry as top-notch writers, but even that didn't stop him from failing again on television -- "Michael Hayes" and "Family Law" for CBS -- before finding success in films.

Sorkin, of course, has also represented himself well on the big screen -- "A Few Good Men," "Malice" and "The American President" -- before his heretofore glorious run in television. So don't pity Sorkin for the failure of "Studio 60," but have no doubt that it is, indeed, a creative misstep.

For a lot of his loyal fans, the question is why? Here, in descending order of importance, are a multitude of answers to that lone query:

• The premise wasn't so much flawed as doomed. It turns out that most Americans didn't care at all about the career woes and personal crises of pampered Hollywood writers. An inside baseball show about the TV industry, apparently, does not have the same gravitas as the presidential politics of "The West Wing," where Sorkin's rapid-fire dialogue, smart speeches and finely tuned dramatic timbre worked especially well.

• It was a drama about a comedy show but the skits weren't funny. In fact, much of the show was decidedly unfunny.

• The cast was a bad fit. Aside from Matthew Perry (who was a wonderful surprise) and Timothy Busfield (who was underused), not much else worked. Sarah Paulson and D.L. Hughley were not funny in this series playing comics. Nate Corddry is funny in real life and was funny on the show, but his part, like Busfield's, was too small. Had Amanda Peet, as the fictional network president, flipped roles with Paulson, it would have been a major improvement. Bradley Whitford is a wonderful actor but he at first seemed to be rejiggering his "West Wing" role, then his character became periodically unlikable or annoying. Either way, it's not the mix you want.

• Steven Weber went from bellicose chairman of the network (which didn't work) to beleaguered chairman of the network (which did, and he became funny while everyone around him went dour by apparent accident.)

This could mean but two things:

• Sorkin was tone deaf to the problems. Or, more likely:

• This was a bad fit for his talents. He aimed for something and missed. No home run. No hit. It happens. (For an example of a behind-the-scenes series that works in a manner that better fits Sorkin's talents and is, without question, far superior, look for the Canadian series "Slings and Arrows" on the Sundance Channel, or rent the DVD.)

• When America didn't care for an inside baseball look at how hard it is to live and work successfully in Hollywood, Sorkin refashioned the series as a romantic comedy. See: "The cast was a bad fit." The Perry-Paulson relationship/ongoing argument was a deadly dull nonstarter. The Whitford-Peet relationship of convenience was wholly unbelievable. Peet's real life pregnancy didn't help Sorkin, clearly, but all the interoffice dating lacked spark and drama.

• Almost every story line was a dud, and no amount of Sorkin whimsy, tear-pulling or soap-box speeches could save them. In fact, those often made the stories worse.

• Who's the rooting interest here? (Take your time.) Ultimately, it was hard to care. Those who tried to care were Sorkin loyalists, and even they were dropping off at the end. Those who didn't care at all opted for "Heroes" or something else entirely. (And, yes, 10 p.m. on a Monday didn't help.)

Despite the demographically desirable audience who did watch "Studio 60," most Americans simply chose not to. Failure analysis is an interesting pursuit, but it doesn't change the fact that the audience decides. Always.

Here's looking forward to Sorkin's next offering.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/19/GOODMAN.TMP

I think the locals get around 2:30 at the midpoint and around 1:30 elsewhere. If they don't do seemless to the next show, they get about 1:30 at the end. So, I believe local avail is 5-6 minutes per hour.

So, you start with a total of 18 minutes:

- 6 minutes for local avail = 12 minutes
- 5 minutes for network promos = 7 minutes total network commercial time.

So: $260,000 X 7 = $1,820,000

One thing to remember, is the locals often get a share of the network adverts.

the $260K is for :30 second spot, so you'd need to double that $1.8 Million.

the $260K is for :30 second spot, so you'd need to double that $1.8 Million.

Which comes to $3.6 million, enough to cover the production of the show ($2.7 million) and make every repeat afterward pure profit (YOU'RE WELCOME :p ). Again, not every show can cover its production cost with one airing because they're not hits or they were but are now getting lower ratings and are loaded with expensive talent (like the 'Law & Order' trilogy). If the ratings for 'Heroes' decrease or the cast bands together for a huge collective pay raise, ala 'Friends' or 'Lost,' then of course that first-run profit margin will go away.

Except there's always potential for new heroes - Sylar could end up being the producer's favorite hatchet-man. :)

Except there's always potential for new heroes - Sylar could end up being the producer's favorite hatchet-man. :)

A Warning to the cast?

Strike, You Lose All Residuals :eek:

Found it. Here's the USA Today article that Fredfa posted back in December in which the ad price and budget for Heroes is shown in comparison to gameshow Deal or No Deal. I couldn't find the story I remember that broke down the production costs of Studio 60 down to $3 million per episode, but that figure is mentioned in almost all news items about the show now that's headed into hiatus-ville....

Am I crazy or naive vfxproducer? :confused:

Your conclusions only work if you assume nothing has changed since that article was published. However, nothing stays the same. Once a show proves it can grab an audience, the studios start opening up the purse strings and spending more money. Similarly, if a show looks doomed, the purse strings get tighter. I've worked on shows that went boths ways. I'm not allowed to discuss shows I work on, so I can only talk in general terms. But I think you get the idea. Any mention in the press of what a show costs per episode is bound to change radically after publication, unless its an established show that hasn't changed in the ratings for a few years.

Just for the record, sylar has not, in the past, had any effect on work completed before a strike.

Residuals for shows in the can are already fixed. Of course proiducvtion companies could try to reduce them as part of a new contract, bvut they are more pragmatic than that. A key issue for them will be to keep the increase as small as possible.

They have been underpaying performers and creative teams since the dawn of the television era. They'd like to keep doing so as mjuch as possible -- especially with the rapid growth of DVDs which cost almost nothing to produce and reap mega profits, and the "new media" which no one really knows much about yet.

Residuals for shows in the can are already fixed.


It was the best I acronym I could create on short notice. To be accurate, how's

Strike, You'll Lose Anymore Residuals?

There you go!

maybe its because the previous episodes were so awful but i thought last nights show was really good. it finally explored many issues that were ignored in previous episodes.

Harriets heightened sense of moral values can actually affect her work as an actress.
They actually mentioned how the show was doing in the ratings.
It actually talked about the dynamic of the writing room.

And it was finally interesting. (for the first time this month.)

This seems like a nice episode for Studio 60 to go out on.

maybe its because the previous episodes were so awful but i thought last nights show was really good. it finally explored many issues that were ignored in previous episodes.

Harriets heightened sense of moral values can actually affect her work as an actress.
They actually mentioned how the show was doing in the ratings.
It actually talked about the dynamic of the writing room.

And it was finally interesting. (for the first time this month.)

This seems like a nice episode for Studio 60 to go out on.


I thought it was a great episode - too bad it was probably the last.
Not surprising, judging by how many people have flocked to this thread in the past 12 hours to comment on it.

I also enjoyed last nights episode and have recorded the entire series but have only watched the last 5/6 eps, so I have the opportunity to watch the begennig eps when I have time. Thanks god for being able to cap ota broadcasts without the ungodly broadcast flags getting in the way and preventing this.

I'm sad this looks like the end. While not a "great" show, I thought Studio 60 was one of the more entertaining shows on tv and recorded it every week. I think with more time it could have possibly picked up an audience, but I can see where the cost to wait for that was prohibitive. The one thing that I take away from this was more respect for both Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry. I always considered both of them marginal actors who had just previously been placed in ideal roles for their talent. I think they both were excellent in this series and look forward to seeing what they each try next.

Be honest, was there anyone that will truthfully admit they did not see exactly what was going to happen with the baby the second they rolled the guillotine through the door? Better yet, did anyone not know the baby would suffer some sort of abuse for comic relief when the bet was made?

Even without Jack, last night's episode was what I expected from the show in the beginning. It wasn't the best, but it was very good.

It did have this weird metaphysical vibe when Danny and Matt started talking about ratings.

The funny portions of the baby storyline were blown by showing the eyes and head popping out on the previews/promos.

And frankly, I couldn't get past the Timothy Busfield character joining the ranks of crappy characters by having him that close to killing one of his writers/actors out of sheer stupidity. It's as if they are trying like hell to prevent us from really liking any of the main characters.

"Oh, no big deal, I must have just had it set wrong" :rolleyes:

Be honest, was there anyone that will truthfully admit they did not see exactly what was going to happen with the baby the second they rolled the guillotine through the door? Better yet, did anyone not know the baby would suffer some sort of abuse for comic relief when the bet was made?


I still found it funny, even though I saw it coming.
I also laughed when Cordry dropped the doll the second the boss left the room, even though it was obvious that would happen as well.
Another scene that hit the mark, despite being foreshadowed, was when the hot lawyer showed up seconds after Perry described his fantasy of a women in a suit with glasses.

I thought it was a great episode - too bad it was probably the last.
Not surprising, judging by how many people have flocked to this thread in the past 12 hours to comment on it.

Was it really the last one?

I guess it really was a good one to go out on if it was, as it was probably my favorite episode so far...

Was it really the last one?

I won't bet on seeing another episode OTA on NBC. I bet the remaining 6 go to the Internet and then it is forgotten as an experiment gone bad.

Well hopefully it will get some life and we can at least finish the season, but I'm not holding my breath. I think if the networks can hold on to it (fat chance considering how much it costs to make), it might grow an audience. It's a great show, but I think people had unrealistic expectations for it in regards to level of humor, etc.

I really don't get the sh*tcanning of episodes already in the can. Unless there's some sort of rebate for unaired episodes, why not air them on a weekend, or one of the many gaps NBC has in their schedule (summer, if nothing else). Ratings may be poor, relative to other big name dramas, or in relation to its cost - but they certainly are respectable if they are already bought and paid for.

I also loved last night's episode, and frankly will be very sad to see the show end, if that is in fact what is going to happen.
Was it perfect, no. But for the most part the show made me care about the characters and what was happening to them. Also, I eagerly awaited each episode. Matthew Perry was/is out-standing, and the rest of the cast also for the most part performed well, imho. When the show just didn't 'work' that well, well it reminded me of the many times that Saturday Night Live was flat also.
Hope it comes back,
Bish

so are Matt and Dolphin girl getting back together? Guess we'll never know...jez...I wasn't quite annoyed with their whole relationship until now...oh well, no worries

I guess we can only hope Donneleys will bomb. Wouldn't that be something?

I suspect there is probably a decent chance of that happening. Though I can't imagine it would reinvigorate the public perception about "Studio 60".

It is tough to get viewers back once they hace decided they don't like a show.

Even tougher when the show is suddenly yanked from the schedule until a date to be specified later.

I guess we can only hope Donneleys will bomb. Wouldn't that be something?

Sounds like Showtime has already done this show, and done it quite well, with 'Brotherhood'.

I guess we can only hope Donneleys will bomb. Wouldn't that be something?


what the hell is that show?

Maybe it should be renamed "the family that beats the crap out of everyone ewith baseball bats"

Not quite as catchy but based on the every promo showing at least 2 bat beatings i think it would be more descript. Maybe the "Bat Boys"

Normally I give any new HD show that fits my tivo's schedule a chance - since there's a hole where Studio 60 was, I'd usually try out the "Bat Boys". But after seeing the promos and looking like all they do is beat people I'm not going to bother.

Sounds like Showtime has already done this show, and done it quite well, with 'Brotherhood'.

I've been thinking the same thing.

do they beat the piss out of people with bats on the showtime version?

(ducks and runs- LOL)

More guns and fists than bats

Wow. I came to this forum to ask about picture quality, only to find out that the show might be cancelled!? WTF?!

I guess my concerns about most of the show being too dark, colorless and sepia-toned (is that the definition of film-like?) can wait until it comes back on-air.

If nothing else NBC should complete the series on Bravo. Even though it would only be in SD, it shouldn't look much softer than it does in HD.

Or better yet, show it on UHD and we can still watch in HD!

Hmmm.

Well I liked the last episode as well. With the exception of any scenes with Jordan in them. I'm not convinced by the Danny/Jordan relationship at all. it doesn't ring true, it seems far too soon in the show's lifespan and Jordan has effectively been neutered from the charismatic wheeler dealer she was brought on as.

All the Matt Perry scenes were excellent. What I expected to see more of when the show started. Some of the dialog was genuinely funny - "Who wrote Kubla Khan?" "Gene Roddenberry?" and more of the cast got used this week as well.

Poor Kari Matchett. Walks of the set of the canceled Invasion and onto the first and last Episode of Studio 60. She was a good addition too.

I thought the final Harriet-Matt scene, which I guess could be the show's final scene, was touching and very, very well done.

I suspect "Studio 60" itself needs some sort of 4 AM Miracle.

Funny Note: 4 AM Miracle was directed by Dr. Weaver from ER (Laura Innes)....I saw it on IMDB today....I didn't even know she was a director

I thought the final Harriet-Matt scene, which I guess could be the show's final scene, was touching and very, very well done.


As someone else commented, this was the first show in a long time that I can remember seeing Matt and Harriet together which didn't make me want to hit the fast forward button.

Sad indeed, i really like the show.

Sad indeed, i really like the show.

Unless you are a Nielsen groupie, no network gives a sh!t about what you (or I) like. And that is the truth. It has become so predictable that if I like a show, it is doomed.

Cue the list of names: Blind Justice, Injustice, Invasion, Surface, S60, yadda yadda yadda ...

Unless you are a Nielsen groupie, no network gives a sh!t about what you (or I) like. And that is the truth. It has become so predictable that if I like a show, it is doomed.

Cue the list of names: Blind Justice, Injustice, Invasion, Surface, S60, yadda yadda yadda ...

*cough*

Invasion and Surface were correctly cancelled ;)

*cough*

Invasion and Surface were correctly cancelled ;)

Yeah, they clearly deserved to get canned, moreso than gems like SuperNanny, Nanny911, Wife Swap and Trading Spouses - just to name a few. ;) ;)

Funny Note: 4 AM Miracle was directed by Dr. Weaver from ER (Laura Innes)....I saw it on IMDB today....I didn't even know she was a director

It must be ER cast guest director week, I noticed Eriq LaSalle directed this past week's Without a Trace...

As someone else commented, this was the first show in a long time that I can remember seeing Matt and Harriet together which didn't make me want to hit the fast forward button.

Maybe because they weren't in any scenes together until the very end. It's also ironic that, given the current ratings erosion, it was fitting for 'Studio 60' to end its run with just the main characters alone in an empty, expensive studio without any screaming audiences or scene changes everywhere. Seems everybody tuned into the show's premiere, and in the end it was just the characters and us (the hardcore viewers that have hung around through thick and thin) just hanging around by ourselves. :(

I too mourn the perceived-to-be-inevitable demise of a misunderstood TV show (by both the viewing audience -including merciless critics- and its own creator) that always showed me interesting characters I cared about enough to return to watch week after week. Were they always likable and interesting? No and often not. Were they self-absorbed and condescending? Absolutely, as are some people (not all) we all meet in real life. Were they in their own peculiar way an interesting bunch of odd people? Yes. Maybe its because I've only seen Matthew Perry in a dumb movie called Fools Rush In with Salma Hayek (never seen an episode of Friends so his Chandler character is foreign to me) but I still can't get over the way he carried "The Friday Night Slaughter" a couple of weeks ago on what was basically a dark dramatic role. If there's any justice in the world Emmys will come knocking on 'Studio 60's' door this September, whether the show is on the air or not, for the writing/acting/directing of this episode as well as the pilot.

Maybe because they weren't in any scenes together until the very end.

I too mourn the perceived-to-be-inevitable demise of a misunderstood TV show (by both the viewing audience -including merciless critics- and its own creator) that always showed me interesting characters I cared about enough to return to watch week after week. Were they always likable and interesting? No and often not. Were they self-absorbed and condescending? Absolutely, as are some people (not all) we all meet in real life. Were they in their own peculiar way an interesting bunch of odd people? Yes. Maybe its because I've only seen Matthew Perry in a dumb movie called Fools Rush In with Salma Hayek (never seen an episode of Friends so his Chandler character is foreign to me) but I still can't get over the way he carried "The Friday Night Slaughter" a couple of weeks ago on what was basically a dark dramatic role. If there's any justice in the world Emmys will come knocking on 'Studio 60's' door this September, whether the show is on the air or not, for the writing/acting/directing of this episode as well as the pilot.

Perry is a fine actor. I'd suggest you give Friends a chance when you run across it on syndication. He was one of the reasons for the success of the show.. just like Kramer was on Seinfled, IMO.

Never seen an episode of either Seinfeld or Friends. With very few exceptions (I Love Lucy, Married... with Children, Tracey Ullman Show, etc.) sitcoms and variety shows make me feel like a ****** that has to be told by a laugh track when to laugh. Actors say one or two lines as set-ups to deliver a punchline that I'm supposed to laugh at because I hear a recording telling me to? No thanks, I watch stuff like 'Studio 60' precisely to escape from the orgy of braindead sitcoms polluting the land. :cool:

you should also rent season one of JOEY and take a good look at a fine young actor by the name of matt la blanc. then close your eyes and imagine how awesome studio 60 would have been if he got the part instead of matthew perry (hint: really awesome).

i think he did a movie with a monkey once too.

you should also rent season one of JOEY and take a good look at a fine young actor by the name of matt la blanc. then close your eyes and imagine how awesome studio 60 would have been if he got the part instead of matthew perry (hint: really awesome).

i think he did a movie with a monkey once too.

Do I sense irony and sarcasm in there? :D

Nah, DeathRay is just high on some of them pills Matty Alby was popping two weeks ago! ;)

Maybe because they weren't in any scenes together until the very end.

no it was because the dynamic between the characters finally changed. I was getting tired of Matt and his simpering, and Harriet fighting him off weakly (and weekly).

i think he did a movie with a monkey once too.

....and if you had NBC's HD "Premium " Channel - UHD, you would have seen it.

And as is typical for UHD titles, Ed scored on IMDB's bottom 100 list with a 2.2 rating.....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116165/

Which is interesting when one considers that so many of UHD's titles and NBC shows come up at the bottom of the ratings......

Never seen an episode of either Seinfeld or Friends. With very few exceptions (I Love Lucy, Married... with Children, Tracey Ullman Show, etc.) sitcoms and variety shows make me feel like a ****** that has to be told by a laugh track when to laugh. Actors say one or two lines as set-ups to deliver a punchline that I'm supposed to laugh at because I hear a recording telling me to? No thanks, I watch stuff like 'Studio 60' precisely to escape from the orgy of braindead sitcoms polluting the land. :cool:

Friends...hmmm...I can agree with you on that one, but Seinfeld, I think it was one of the best shows ever created. That show is the reason why we see almost all the sitcoms today. Seinfeld was smart enough to get out of the business while he was on top. That show had original materials that genuinely made you laugh, it was something between stand-up and sitcom. You can see Jerry almost laughing almost all the time.

All the sitcoms you see on TV today are the same, the character says one thing and the opposite happens. "oh so you think I have one night stands with strangers?", next scene, you see a stranger come out of her room and says "Hi, last night was great". They are so predictable that since I have the DVR, I played a game with my cousin where I pause TV and tell what will happe and/or be said next, I was right about 4 out of 5 times. Sarcasm is the only theme to the new sitcoms and it is sickening. I wouldn't blame anyone for not watching the new ones.

BTW, I don't know if that person was being sarcastic or not, but Joey was by far one of the most horrendous shows ever aired on TV. Just plain awful, the guy can't act and all he has is the Joey character from Friends.

Never seen an episode of ... Seinfeld...
Credibility: gone.

Sense of self-love and pride: still here! :rolleyes:

Sense of self-love and pride: still here! :rolleyes:

Agreed about the laugh-track. However, I also love Seinfeld, and the Office. Have you seen that one?

Back on topic: I enjoy this show for the writing - very witty, reminds me of Moonlighting or LA Law at times. Good show - good drama - with very enjoyable funny parts, at times. I wish NBC would stick with it...

Joey was by far one of the most horrendous shows ever aired on TV. Just plain awful

credibility: gone!

did you ever see the one where joey said "How you doin'?"! oh my god. i'm cracking up just thinking about it.

that's what is wrong with studio 60. not enough catch phrases. how are we supposed to know when to laugh?

also maybe matt albie should turn to the camera and look exasperated from time to time. a personal connection like that would really help the audience know when poor old matt is feeling exasperated.

The Office is the funniest show on TV right now. Love The New Adventures of Christine too.

AP story about Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/28/apontv.salvagejob.ap/index.html. :( :( :(

AP story about Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/28/apontv.salvagejob.ap/index.html. :( :( :(

This story has already been posted, dad, either here or in the HOTP thread. But you need to steel yourself to the fact that this is only the beginning of the post-mortums on 'Studio 60'. For the record, I feel [some of] your pain. But I don't think even Matthew Perry feels all of your pain. ;)

credibility: gone!

did you ever see the one where joey said "How you doin'?"! oh my god. i'm cracking up just thinking about it.

that's what is wrong with studio 60. not enough catch phrases. how are we supposed to know when to laugh?


First of all, that "How you doin'?" crap is from Friends which is not that good to begin with. But again, we all have different tastes and I guess you like that type of comedy. Have you seen Joey as a star of a film? a successful one anyway, I don't think so. It is because all he has got from acting is that Joey persona and that is it, he can't act and be funny.

Now it is my turn
liking "How you doin'?" = credibility gone

Second, why do you need someone to laugh for you to know it is a joke. Do you ever watch comedy movies by yourself or with one person only? I don't mean to insult you, but come on, if there is a joke you will get it, if not you won't, no matter how many laughs you hear. If you laugh without getting the joke just because the others are laughing then ....(you fill in here what you like).

First of all, that "How you doin'?" crap is from Friends which is not that good to begin with. But again, we all have different tastes and I guess you like that type of comedy. Have you seen Joey as a star of a film? a successful one anyway, I don't think so. It is because all he has got from acting is that Joey persona and that is it, he can't act and be funny.

Now it is my turn
liking "How you doin'?" = credibility gone

Second, why do you need someone to laugh for you to know it is a joke. Do you ever watch comedy movies by yourself or with one person only? I don't mean to insult you, but come on, if there is a joke you will get it, if not you won't, no matter how many laughs you hear. If you laugh without getting the joke just because the others are laughing then ....(you fill in here what you like).

You missed the sarcasm.

I watch Studio 60 by myself (nobody else, friends or family, will watch it with me) and it often makes me laugh out loud even though there's no obvious joke or punchline taking place. It's more like the subtle gestures of the actors or an inspired verbal pun when Matt Alby says something, interrupts himself and then gets back on track, conspire to make me sense something hilarious happening that others might not sense. Call it Police Squad for intellectuals, jokes/comedy so high-brow that unless a sign flashes on screen saying JOKE! JOKE! average TV viewers wouldn't know something funny was happening.

You missed the sarcasm.
Big time. :D

You missed the sarcasm.

Spotting sarcasm - one of the few things I learned from Friends! :p

Spotting sarcasm - one of the few things I learned from Friends! :p

So, that is why I didn't spot the sarcasm, didn't watch friends :rolleyes: . To be honest, I didn't read the last part, as soon as I saw CREDIBILITY GONE! I started typing.

A good episode for the show to go out on, I think. That decapitated doll storyline was hilarious. I wish more of the episodes had been as good as this one.

I watch Studio 60 by myself (nobody else, friends or family, will watch it with me) and it often makes me laugh out loud even though there's no obvious joke or punchline taking place.

"Get rid of Demented Santa!"

Not entirely, it wouldn't. Veronica Mars is also shot in 16mm and, though it isn't up to the quality of most other primetime dramas, the picture is substantially better than any episode of Studio 60. The Studio 60 pilot looked like VHS quality. Things improved moderately for a little while, but the last two episodes have been awful again.
The latest issue of American Cinematographer says the first ten episodes were shot on 35mm but episodes after those were shot on Super 16mm to save money.

One of the main reasons I started watching "Friends" was because of Mathew Perry as I quite enjoyed him on his old crappy Fox shows and weird unproduced tv pilots. As well as Lisa Kudrow previously with the theater group The Groundlings. After the first couple of season I felt the show got boring.

I really would not mind if Studio 60 got cancelled, even thought I like the show. Strange thing to say but often I feel worse if it goes on longer and cancelled a season or 2 later. By that time the show get's deep into my weekly viewing habits.

The latest issue of American Cinematographer says the first ten episodes were shot on 35mm but episodes after those were shot on Super 16mm to save money.

Right around the time "Studio 60" took its Dec./Feb. hiatus. Interesting reflection of where the producers/studio chose to cut the show's budget: the PQ and not the cast or sets. Thanks for posting this.

The article also mentioned that the budget required them to shoot more on their massive set (something like 30,000 square feet) and less on location.

The latest issue of American Cinematographer says the first ten episodes were shot on 35mm but episodes after those were shot on Super 16mm to save money.
PQ looks like 2 mm. :D

PQ looks like 2 mm. :D

You're confusing PQ with the show's ratings. :(

Right around the time "Studio 60" took its Dec./Feb. hiatus. Interesting reflection of where the producers/studio chose to cut the show's budget: the PQ and not the cast or sets. Thanks for posting this.
The lousy picture quality has to be more than just switching to 16mm film. Other shows are shot on 16mm such as some of the CW network shows - IIRC, Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars for example. While these shows are hardly outstanding HD, they are no where near as muddy and soft as Studio 60. Maybe the producers are also shooting Studio 60 with dim lighting and digital soft filters to save money on bulbs, electricity, and make-up.

Sorry if this was posted elsewhere. Earlier in the thread, there was a discussion about Studio 60's affluent audience. Here is proof. According to Nielsen Media Research, Studio 60's audience is tied for 4th most affluent on TV.

Here is the article and the Top 20 list:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10573.asp

Sorry if this was posted elsewhere. Earlier in the thread, there was a discussion about Studio 60's affluent audience. Here is proof. According to Nielsen Media Research, Studio 60's audience is tied for 4th most affluent on TV.

Here is the article and the Top 20 list:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10573.asp
grrrrrrr...i consider myself intelligent (well, highly intelligent when compared to most people i meet on a daily basis when i'm out shopping, getting gas, etc. ;)) and my household is quite affluent, which is why it erks me so much that idiots, the biggest contributors to the Nielson ratings, are indirectly killing my favorite shows! Studio, Arrested Development, The Class...possibly Scrubs and The Office...maybe we should donate $$ to start our own channel...call it InTV (Intelligence TV) and keep the shows that are too "smart" for the general public on the air. in an age where ratings mean practically everything and networks have quickest of triggers when it comes to yanking shows, it might not be a bad idea :).

grrrrrrr...i consider myself intelligent (well, highly intelligent when compared to most people i meet on a daily basis when i'm out shopping, getting gas, etc. ;)) and my household is quite affluent, which is why it erks me so much that idiots, the biggest contributors to the Nielson ratings, are indirectly killing my favorite shows! Studio, Arrested Development, The Class...possibly Scrubs and The Office...maybe we should donate $$ to start our own channel...call it InTV (Intelligence TV) and keep the shows that are too "smart" for the general public on the air. in an age where ratings mean practically everything and networks have quickest of triggers when it comes to yanking shows, it might not be a bad idea :).

Very true! Where do we send donations! :D

The loss of AD was the biggest recent TV upset for me, although I hold FOX to blame for a lot of that. They never really gave that show a fighting chance.

Would also hate to see SCRUBS go, although I remember seeing an interview w/ Zach Braff a while back (think it was on a late-night talk show) saying that this might be his last season on SCRUBS. Without J.D., you kinda don't have a show (no slight intended to the rest of the great cast).

THE OFFICE is in danger? Really?

STUDIO 60 has filled the void left for me and the wife by the loss of THE WEST WING. Never gave up on that show.

I do find it funny that recent reports of LOST getting "only 12 million viewers" could spell it's doom. Please....there are plenty of shows that would kill for 12 million people tuning in. Not every show is gonna get AMERICAN IDOL numbers (a phenomenon I still don't understand).

STUDIO 60 has filled the void left for me and the wife by the loss of THE WEST WING. Never gave up on that show.
I missed the last season of West Wing and just finished the last ep tonight on DVD. It took me three weeks to watch the last three episodes because I knew that this was it.

One of the top three shows in TV history. The Studio 60 concept was not a good fit for Sorkin. It lacked gravitas that Sorkin needs or it just comes across as Sorkin showing off how smart he is.

I do find it funny that recent reports of LOST getting "only 12 million viewers" could spell it's doom. Please....there are plenty of shows that would kill for 12 million people tuning in. Not every show is gonna get AMERICAN IDOL numbers (a phenomenon I still don't understand).


Sure 12 Million are nice, but at what costs - and therein lies the problem....Big cast...expensive to produce and budget based on what it WAS pulling in the ratings.

The West Wing went through the same thing - and when it fell out of the Top 10 the budgets had to be slashed and the spiral continued (not that Sorkin didn't get to far out their with his story line).

There is a reason why NBC has essentially given up on anything but cheaply produced shows Non-HD shows in the 8pm-9pm hours now.

You could produce a show for $10 Million an episode and get yourself in the Top 5 every week - but as it would loose money, it wouldn't be worth it and no network could afford it.

THE OFFICE is in danger? Really?



No. It's rating are not great but NBC considers it one of their showcase, flagship shows. It's run will probably be stopped more by Steve's burgeoning movie career than NBC stopping it. Should it get better ratings? Based on it's quality it damned well should but we're into the intelligence factor again.


Among middling performers with affluent viewers propping up NBC is “The Office,” a comedy that so far this season ranks only No. 28 among all shows in the 18-49 demographic. But it is tied with ABC’s “Housewives” at No. 1 in affluence, with its viewers having a median income of $70,000.

No. It's rating are not great but NBC considers it one of their showcase, flagship shows. It's run will probably be stopped more by Steve's burgeoning movie career than NBC stopping it. Should it get better ratings? Based on it's quality it damned well should but we're into the intelligence factor again.


Among middling performers with affluent viewers propping up NBC is “The Office,” a comedy that so far this season ranks only No. 28 among all shows in the 18-49 demographic. But it is tied with ABC’s “Housewives” at No. 1 in affluence, with its viewers having a median income of $70,000.

I have a lame :cool: reasoning for why The Office isn't as highly rated as some would like. My theory is that after spending 8 hours a day in basically the same environment, why should I as a view go home and watch what I just came out of?

No. It's rating are not great but NBC considers it one of their showcase, flagship shows...
yeah, that's kinda what i meant...i don't think it's in trouble per se, but the general public seems to have chosen Two & A Half Men over it (in the comedy genre...obviously, i know they're on different nights) and its ratings surely reflect that.

man, there i go again...referencing Two & A Half Men...as much as i give mention to it as my "go to bad show", you'd think i actually like it :).

I have a lame :cool: reasoning for why The Office isn't as highly rated as some would like. My theory is that after spending 8 hours a day in basically the same environment, why should I as a view go home and watch what I just came out of?
The same reason people read Dilbert? Actually, my theory is the exact opposite. The people that don't spend their day in an office don't watch The Office because they can't relate as well. Does the guy working on a loading dock or digging trenches watch The Office? Might help explain why its numbers do better with higher income groups.

I did have to chuckle reading the Media Life article, implying those with 70K HH incomes are "very rich." Upper income maybe, and certainly not poor, but very rich?

I did have to chuckle reading the Media Life article, implying those with 70K HH incomes are "very rich." Upper income maybe, and certainly not poor, but very rich?
i agree...my wife and i make about that much...each. and growing up, my dad worked for Micro$oft in the 90's for about 10 years...while we certainly weren't/aren't "poor", we definitely weren't what i would call "very rich".

not to wonder off topic- but I'm no dolt and I tried the office a few times and found it terrible.

I work in offices and out at constuctions sites- so that's an issue- my wife and I just thought it was terrible and not funny.

So i'm just not getting it.

To each his own...

not to wonder off topic- but I'm no dolt and I tried the office a few times and found it terrible.

I work in offices and out at constuctions sites- so that's an issue- my wife and I just thought it was terrible and not funny.

So i'm just not getting it.

To each his own...
I think the problem with the office is they tried to portal the show over to the US without giving it the the feel of an American office environment. "Office Space" did that for us and was hillarious. I saw so many great intuitive looks inside my own work environment (despite the fact that I work in a TV environment, rather than a cubicle), it was just dead on. The office just seemed to pale in comparison.

Now, I haven't watched "The Office" lately to know if it is any closer, but those first episodes just had me scratching my head wondering why it was funny.

I have a lame :cool: reasoning for why The Office isn't as highly rated as some would like. My theory is that after spending 8 hours a day in basically the same environment, why should I as a view go home and watch what I just came out of?
I disagree. I work in TV and I generally enjoy shows that take place in the world of TV. Movies like Network, Broadcast News, etc. (whether realistic or not) are fun to watch for me. Now, I do hate some of the blatent incorrect stuff they try to get away with, but realisticly I know that will happen with a show about any profession.

Honestly, in contrast, I would say a show is a greater success when it attracts the very people portrayed on the show because of that reflection of their lives. We like seeing our problems addressed. It's that whole "oh, tell me about it..." mentality.

Now, I haven't watched "The Office" lately to know if it is any closer, but those first episodes just had me scratching my head wondering why it was funny.
the first couple episodes of season 1 were basically word-for-word ports of the UK version, which didn't really translate well to the US market. about 11-13 of the season 2 episodes are really good and of the 18 that have aired so far in season 3, i'd say 15 of them are good with over 1/2 being outstanding.

to stay off topic :) - i would recommend #9 Email Surveillance, #10 Christmas Party, #15 Boys And Girls and #22 Casino Night from season 2...and #1 Gay Witch Hunt, #2 The Convention (prolly my fav), #10/11 Benihana Christmas (another fav) from this season...actually, anything from #10 to #18 (the last 8 eps) are really good.

just my 2 cents.

Guys, why aren't you posting all these "Office"-related post on that show's own thread? This is the "Studio 60" thread. Nothing remotely funny is supposed to be happening here because this is a very serious drama about a comedy show, remember? It is, after all, an Aaron Snoring production. ;)

Back on topic, apparently The Black Donnellys' ratings are even worse than Studio 60's. I'm not sure how the two shows compare in terms of budget. Could NBC be in a position where it would make sense to bring back S60?

Fredfa (from the "Hot Off the Press" thread) and I agree: even if its just to fulfill the contractual obligations with Warner Bros., Aaron Sorkin and the cast (all of whom have to get paid for 22 episodes whether NBC airs them or not) NBC is better off bringing "Studio 60" back on the air to burn off its remaining episodes. It doesn't have to be on Monday nights though. And if you think "The Black Donnellys" ratings are bad just wait until next week, when there won't even be the cushy lead-in from a new "Heroes" for "Donnellys" to waste. :p

Budgetwise though, "Studio 60" is loaded with stars (both in front and behind the camera) and expensive-to-maintain sets from Hollywood/studio union people that don't work cheap. The cast of "Black Donnellys" are mostly unknowns and its location production doesn't seem to stretch the limits of an average network drama. The former is easily 30% more expensive to produce than the latter.

Back on topic, apparently The Black Donnellys' ratings are even worse than Studio 60's. I'm not sure how the two shows compare in terms of budget. Could NBC be in a position where it would make sense to bring back S60?


I think it would depend on what kind of deal the network has with TBD and weather or not they have anything else ready to try in that time slot but it's getting more and more likely that we'll see, at least, the last of this season's S60 episodes.

Fredfa (from the "Hot Off the Press" thread) and I agree: even if its just to fulfill the contractual obligations with Warner Bros., Aaron Sorkin and the cast (all of whom have to get paid for 22 episodes whether NBC airs them or not) NBC is better off bringing "Studio 60" back on the air to burn off its remaining episodes. It doesn't have to be on Monday nights though. And if you think "The Black Donnellys" ratings are bad just wait until next week, when there won't even be the cushy lead-in from a new "Heroes" for "Donnellys" to waste. :p

Budgetwise though, "Studio 60" is loaded with stars (both in front and behind the camera) and expensive-to-maintain sets from Hollywood/studio union people that don't work cheap. The cast of "Black Donnellys" are mostly unknowns and its location production doesn't seem to stretch the limits of an average network drama. The former is easily 30% more expensive to produce than the latter.

On the other hand, how much location shooting is being done on The Black Donnellys? If they do a lot on studio backlots, supplimented by a few select location shots, like NYPD did, it can be done economically.

Studio 60, while a large set, probably doesn't have too many more extras throughout an episode than would be needed to fill out a few city street scenes. The studio "audience" would be very cheap to cast since they really don't have to do much (unlike other background characters that have to hit marks accurately for multiple takes).

In addition, while the Studio 60 set is huge, that's pretty much the extent of the world on most episodes. At most, you generate one additional set per episode for those occasional plotlines out in "the real world".

On The Black Donnellys, you also have to factor in stunts, clearing streets of anachronistic elements, blocking traffic, and moving between multiple locations. The indoor sets are certainly cheaper than Studio 60, though, purely based on scope. The jail set, for example, is tiny and can probably be set up and struck quickly.

The cast is probably more expensive for S60 most are veteran actors who ain't gonna work for cheap.

TBD has a lesser known lead cast but alot of the supporting actors are vets.

Does anyone have actual budget figures for the two shows? I know Studio 60's numbers were post in this thread at one point, but I'd be interested in knowing just what it costs to complete an episode of TBD.

I think it would depend on what kind of deal the network has with TBD and weather or not they have anything else ready to try in that time slot but it's getting more and more likely that we'll see, at least, the last of this season's S60 episodes.

I agree; since 'Donnellys' is tanking faster than a thirsty F-15 (how's that for an analogy!), it's very likely we'll get to watch the end of 'Studio 60' on our HDTV's eventually rather than online. For us fans of the show (especially dad), that's a good thing, but from NBC's viewpoint, it's the lesser of 2 evils.

I agree; since 'Donnellys' is tanking faster than a thirsty F-15 (how's that for an analogy!), it's very likely we'll get to watch the end of 'Studio 60' on our HDTV's eventually rather than online. For us fans of the show (especially dad), that's a good thing, but from NBC's viewpoint, it's the lesser of 2 evils.
Maybe they can bring back Surface. :)

Honestly, in contrast, I would say a show is a greater success when it attracts the very people portrayed on the show because of that reflection of their lives. We like seeing our problems addressed. It's that whole "oh, tell me about it..." mentality.

we need a reality show that shows real people sitting on a couch watching reality tv.

"oh oh, we're out of potato chips!?!?"

"dang, i think i'm sitting on the remote!!!"

could be a smash it

we need a reality show that shows real people sitting on a couch watching reality tv.
You just blew my mind.

we need a reality show that shows real people sitting on a couch watching reality tv.

"oh oh, we're out of potato chips!?!?"

"dang, i think i'm sitting on the remote!!!"

could be a smash it
Wasn't that "Married with Children"?

grrrrrrr...i consider myself intelligent (well, highly intelligent when compared to most people i meet on a daily basis when i'm out shopping, getting gas, etc. ;)) and my household is quite affluent, which is why it erks me so much that idiots, the biggest contributors to the Nielson ratings, are indirectly killing my favorite shows! Studio, Arrested Development, The Class...possibly Scrubs and The Office...maybe we should donate $$ to start our own channel...call it InTV (Intelligence TV) and keep the shows that are too "smart" for the general public on the air. in an age where ratings mean practically everything and networks have quickest of triggers when it comes to yanking shows, it might not be a bad idea :).

Or, we could just call it "HBO".
:)

Or, we could just call it "HBO".
:)
HBO has been a little less tolorant to slipping ratings lately. In addition, how smart can any network be that is perfectly OK with cropping movies to 16x9?

I have a lame :cool: reasoning for why The Office isn't as highly rated as some would like. My theory is that after spending 8 hours a day in basically the same environment, why should I as a view go home and watch what I just came out of?

My guess is that The Office hasn't caught on as much as old-fashioned comedies because of its quirky sense of humor. Plenty of mainstream viewers are just not going to laugh at what The Office wants you to find funny, especially if they are just sitting down for one episode every now and then. I'm just glad there are enough people out there who do find it funny and can appreciate it. I love it and think it's absolutely hilarious.

Anyway, I don't think stupid people killed Studio 60. Studio 60 killed itself. Horrible writing, unlikeable characters, grating romances. It was a disaster from top to bottom. Steven Webber was the only reason I continued to watch.

Or, we could just call it "HBO".
:)hehe...perfect :).

My guess is that The Office hasn't caught on as much as old-fashioned comedies because of its quirky sense of humor. Plenty of mainstream viewers are just not going to laugh at what The Office wants you to find funny...maybe they need to simulcast another version of The Office with a laugh track for the "general public" :rolleyes:.

Anyway, I don't think stupid people killed Studio 60. Studio 60 killed itself. Horrible writing, unlikeable characters, grating romances. It was a disaster from top to bottom. Steven Webber was the only reason I continued to watch.i'll agree with you about the "grating romances", but the show did have some very good dialog and the story lines, while not always emmy material, were better than any of the characters' story lines on something like CSI: <insert_city_name>...granted, the CSI's don't necessarily pride themselves on character development, but when they take a swing, they usually miss.


sturmie

i'll agree with you about the "grating romances", but the show did have some very good dialog and the story lines, while not always emmy material, were better than any of the characters' story lines on something like CSI: <insert_city_name>...granted, the CSI's don't necessarily pride themselves on character development, but when they take a swing, they usually miss.


sturmie
Agreed. It was the romance angles that turned me off. It's not that I don't like a little romance in my storylines, it's just those particular romances were annoying and - in some cases - downright creapy and disturbing.

Any news as to if/when the remaining episodes are going to be run? I'm cleaning up my season passes and almost removed this one last night.

Any news as to if/when the remaining episodes are going to be run? I'm cleaning up my season passes and almost removed this one last night.

No, but rest assured, within minutes of such an announcement being broken, you'll find it either here, or in the HOTP sticky thread, and probably both. I've resigned myself that it's 99% certain to be cancelled and NBC will do their usual thing of burning off any new episodes on the web with a one-week life span per episode. I missed out on the remaining 'Kidnapped' eps because of that decidedly un-viewer-friendly policy. But there's certainly no harm in leaving it on your season-pass list (in case it pops back up unannounced) for the time being; that's what I'm doing.

Haven't seen any activity on thread in a few weeks, thought I would throw this article out there for those that might not have seen it already. I would love to at least see the remaining 4 episodes of season 1. It doesn't look like "The Black Donnellys" is doing any better than Studio 60 in the Monday 9P EST time slot.

Studio 60: Maybe Not Dead Yet (http://buzzsugar.com/193380)
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 4:29pm by BuzzSugar

"Studio 60" fans, here's some potentially good news: According to Hollywood Reporter columnist Ray Richmond, the show is still in production, and the cast and crew are currently working on episode 20.

NBC still hasn't said when (or whether) it plans to air these additional episodes, but it's a good sign that fans might get to finish out the full season. Only 16 episodes have aired so far, and I can't imagine NBC spending the money to produce more if they weren't eventually going to make it to TV.

But when? Richmond speculates that the show won't be back this spring and could instead air its final episodes sometime over the summer. I could also see NBC getting frustrated with lackluster ratings for "The Black Donnellys" and putting "Studio 60" back in its original spot. It will be interesting to see what happens April 23, when "Heroes" is back and the stakes go up for the show that follows it.

If you're a fan of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (or love to hate the show) you'll love this skit from last night's Late Night with Conan O'Brien: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMiGjSabTjI&mode=user&search=. It's clear from watching this that someone at "Late Night" watched "Studio 60" because this thing has subplots straight out of the Sorkin's show. :D

The romance between the two leads just turned me off. They deserve each other. So put them on another show or let them go off and fight or make love or whatever......just get them out so you are not screwing up a potentially good show. (I said potentially)

You might think the following has nothing to do with Studio 60 but wait for the second set of exercises (after "the CAT" set). It's the Neck and Shoulders set.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEz0B2B_BHw

the show returns Thursday May 24th 10pm according to nbc.com, day after sweeps

Great! Can you possibly link to the article? Thanks!

the show returns Thursday May 24th 10pm according to nbc.com, day after sweeps


come again??? for real ? :eek:

top right of the studio 60 page on NBC it has the date.

Here's the page (http://www.nbc.com/Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip/)

Thursday night at 9C in the old ER slot would be perfect for Studio 60. That Monday at 9P slot is a dog, hard for any show to make a go of it there.

I wonder if they will show reruns first? I hope not.

(02-21-07, 09:44 AM) I guess we can only hope Donneleys will bomb. Wouldn't that be something?
Sweet! Just what I hoped for!

Yippeee!

Somebody better go revive dad; I think he passed out when he heard the news. :p

TV Notebook
“Studio 60” to Return
By Roger Catlin Hartford Courant TV Critic in his “TV Eye” blog April 28, 2007

It hasn’t been on the air since February, and little had been said of its future since then.

But NBC announced last week that the Aaron Sorkin drama “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” will return to air May 24.

The bad news is that it’s a day after sweeps ends, meaning the network doesn’t want the show to drain it’s already shaky fourth place numbers.

There are six episodes remaining to be seen this season, and whether or not it’s on the fall schedule will become clear, too, next month, when the network unveils its plans during the annual upfront presentations for advertisers.

Originally, “Studio 60,” which has only averaged about 8.4 million viewers by February, went on hiatus to make way for “The Black Donnellys,” a limited series that actually did worse, and was pulled before its season was completed (the even bigger dud, “The Real Wedding Crashers” is in the post “Heroes” slot now).

When it returns, “Studio 60” will air on Thursdays, where it was originally scheduled before ABC decided to move “Grey’s Anatomy” there.

“Studio 60” was one of two new NBC shows this season that concerned life backstage at a “Saturday Night Live” type sketch show; the other one, “30 Rock,” has averaged smaller audiences than “Studio 60,” (6.4 million viewers) but has already been picked up for a second season.

http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2007/04/studio_60_to_re.html

the other one, “30 Rock,” has averaged smaller audiences than “Studio 60,” (6.4 million viewers) but has already been picked up for a second season.
How does that make any sense? Studio 60 was the best performer in the slot after Heroes and they still aren't bringing it back.

Who says it makes sense?

Aside from the ratings (which were headed in a seemingly unstoppable downward spiral), the show apparently is tremendously expensive to produce on a weekly basis.

For what its worth, I'm happy. I'll take whatever I can get. Not looking this gift horse in the mouth. :D

I agree, ion-man.

It certainly should make the first six weeks after the "season" ends a little less bleak.

Do we know (fredfa) if a "finale" has been written and/or shot?

First there is Studio 60, then there is no Studio 60 then there is. Not sure if this sounds like a song of desperation or inspiration for NBC, but either way I'm happy it's coming back. I just hope the remaining episodes aren't too soapy.

Who says it makes sense?
It was a comment on how stupid NBC was being. ;)

Now if they would only cancel the god awful ER I would be happy. Never a more depressing show I have ever seen. Every show is about some kid being killed or some pregant mother having a terrible accident, or someone coming in the ER and shooting or slicing the doctors. When George Clooney and Noah Wyle walked, the show did too.

More Studio 60, Medium and Raines please!

Now if they would only cancel the god awful ER I would be happy. Never a more depressing show I have ever seen. Every show is about some kid being killed or some pregant mother having a terrible accident, or someone coming in the ER and shooting or slicing the doctors. When George Clooney and Noah Wyle walked, the show did too.

More Studio 60, Medium and Raines please!
ER will be gone after next season.

Now if they would only cancel the god awful ER I would be happy. Never a more depressing show I have ever seen. Every show is about some kid being killed or some pregant mother having a terrible accident, or someone coming in the ER and shooting or slicing the doctors. When George Clooney and Noah Wyle walked, the show did too.

More Studio 60, Medium and Raines please!

Why in the world would it make you happy if some show you don't enjoy gets cancelled? You aren't watching it, so why do you care?

If you can't find enough to interest you in over 100 hours of network prime-time television, (not to mention PBS and dozens of original cable network shows), why would you think NBC cancelling ER would result in another show you would approve of?

Do we know (fredfa) if a "finale" has been written and/or shot?

I have heard nothing about a series finale, foxeng. I would assume there is a season finale, but given the ratings and the long layoff, perhaps Sorkin read the tea leaves and did something to tie up at least some of the loose ends.

Why in the world would it make you happy if some show you don't enjoy gets cancelled? You aren't watching it, so why do you care?

If you can't find enough to interest you in over 100 hours of network prime-time television, (not to mention PBS and dozens of original cable network shows), why would you think NBC cancelling ER would result in another show you would approve of?

Because I cannot stand the overplayed commercials for ER on NBC.

How does that make any sense? Studio 60 was the best performer in the slot after Heroes and they still aren't bringing it back.

30 Rock certainly has a smaller budget than Studio 60, so one would presume it can pull in lower ratings and still be a more profitable show.

Bill Carter of the New York Times reports in the Friday, May 11 edition that "Studio 60" has been cancelled.

Lots more details in the "Hot Off The Press" sticky.

Ahhh man! That sucks.

Bill Carter of the New York Times reports in the Friday, May 11 edition that "Studio 60" has been cancelled.

Lots more details in the "Hot Off The Press" sticky.

No one, with the possible exception of dad, can possibly be shocked by this. :rolleyes:

Tell your dad he gets shocked too easily. ;)

Sad.

are they still going to play the last 6 episodes?

Yes, Thursdays at 10PM ET/PT, starting May 24.

Well perhaps viewers will pull a "Drew Carey" and get the show back on TV.

Write to NBC that you don't want it cancelled.

When I read that the sets were being struck earlier in the week I knew it was over. (as if it was not clear already)

When I read that the sets were being struck earlier in the week I knew it was over. (as if it was not clear already)
That really doesn't mean anything. Studios often use soundstages for other projects when a show is on hiatus. For example, while both apartments and the "Central Perk" sets from "Friends" normally stayed up during production times, they were struck near summer to make room for other productions.

Studio space is expensive and often at a premium - especially those stages with audience facilities. When it's not being used, other large productions often move in temporarilly. For example, the last "Lethal Weapon" movie as many as 9 stages by itself on the WB lot. "The Perfect Storm" and "The Time Machine" each ate up stage 19 during filming, which left only smaller stages for other projects. The situation is similar at other studios.

Striking a set doesn't indicate cancellation. It only indicates it's not filming at the time.

However, in this case, the outlook isn't good.

Well perhaps viewers will pull a "Drew Carey" and get the show back on TV.

Write to NBC that you don't want it cancelled.

Typically contracts for cast and crew expire about the time of the annual upfront presentations by the networks. (NBC's is Monday.)

So if a show hasn't been renewed by then, they all scatter to get other work and it is all but impossible to reassemble them.

Typically contracts for cast and crew expire about the time of the annual upfront presentations by the networks. (NBC's is Monday.)

So if a show hasn't been renewed by then, they all scatter to get other work and it is all but impossible to reassemble them.
Unless you're really, really lucky...

However, I see little reason for the network to want to worry about it.

Who were all those people claiming this was the biggest "Can't miss" hit in the last decade?

Who were all those people claiming this was the biggest "Can't miss" hit in the last decade?
It wasn't me.

While I liked the show, I certainly don't miss it. The fact that I didn't notice when my DVR stopped recording new episodes speaks volumes.

There are a few "can't miss" shows in the lin-up. This was never one of them. I liked it, but there were plenty of other shows I watched in the DVR before this one each week.

Now if they would only cancel the god awful ER I would be happy. Never a more depressing show I have ever seen. Every show is about some kid being killed or some pregant mother having a terrible accident, or someone coming in the ER and shooting or slicing the doctors. When George Clooney and Noah Wyle walked, the show did too.

More Studio 60, Medium and Raines please!


Yup. ER ran out of ideas about 6 years ago, someone just forgot to cover the casket with earth...

A little DVR Alert for fans of "Studio 60" that want to see what some of the cast members are up to now that they're free to pursue work:

Bradley Whitford will be a guest on this Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher (11PM ET/PT on HBO).

Steven Webber guest-stars on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit next Tuesday May 22nd (10PM ET/PT on NBC).

And of course Amanda Peet can be not seen in Zach Braff's new theatrical bomb The Ex, out now in theaters. :D

Well, it's coming back tonight after a three-month absence to wrap-up its run with six unaired episodes. I'm not only excited because I genuinely love and like the premise/show/characters (warts and all), but since the show went off the air I bought a 47" 1080p LCD (Olevia 747i). Last time I saw "Studio 60" in February was on my still-kicking 27" Sony Wega SD TV, so I get the experience both the glory and wholesome intelligence of Sorkin's writing in HD for the first time in my life. How lucky can a boy be? :)

Well, it's coming back tonight after a three-month absence to wrap-up its run with six unaired episodes. I'm not only excited because I genuinely love and like the premise/show/characters (warts and all), but since the show went off the air I bought a 47" 1080p LCD (Olevia 747i). Last time I saw "Studio 60" in February was on my still-kicking 27" Sony Wega SD TV, so I get the experience both the glory and wholesome intelligence of Sorkin's wring in HD for the first time in my life. How lucky can a boy be? :)

I doubt the picture resolution will effect the writing much. ;)

I doubt the picture resolution will effect the writing much. ;)
Or the shows longevity.... ;)

I'm really looking forward to the final episodes. From my understanding they were able to wrap up most of the plot lines since they knew they weren't coming back (unlike most shows). I'll miss the show, but at least with Studio 60 it looks like we might get some closure.

I'm really looking forward to the final episodes. From my understanding they were able to wrap up most of the plot lines since they knew they weren't coming back (unlike most shows). I'll miss the show, but at least with Studio 60 it looks like we might get some closure.

Yeah, I'm going to watch it too. I actually liked the show, though not as fanatically as some. ;)

A little DVR Alert for fans of "Studio 60" that want to see what some of the cast members are up to now that they're free to pursue work:

Bradley Whitford will be a guest on this Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher (11PM ET/PT on HBO).



while i pretty much agree with his politics i can't bear listening to bradley whitford speak. he stumbles over his words and rambles a lot. it's painful. maybe he needs to come in with a script.

looking forward to the final episodes of s60 though.

I'm not only excited because I genuinely love and like the premise/show/characters (warts and all), but since the show went off the air I bought a 47" 1080p LCD (Olevia 747i). Last time I saw "Studio 60" in February was on my still-kicking 27" Sony Wega SD TV, so I get the experience both the glory and wholesome intelligence of Sorkin's writing in HD for the first time in my life. How lucky can a boy be? :)

Not so much, really. Studio 60 looks about as good as the DVD version will. It's a mess, just like The West Wing was.

It is now 20 minutes in to this and I have lost all interest in it. I was really looking forward to see S60 again but any investment I had is gone knowing it is gone. I will try and finish it, but I not sure I will watch the rest, if they air.

I have moved on. I hate that.

It is now 20 minutes in to this and I have lost all interest in it. I was really looking forward to see S60 again but any investment I had is gone knowing it is gone. I will try and finish it, but I not sure I will watch the rest, if they air.

I have moved on. I hate that.

I have extremely mixed feelings (most of them negative) about this episode as well foxeng (and coming from me you know that's something! :( ). It looks like to save on the show's budget the producers decided to keep Matthew Perry, Bradley Whitford and Amanda Peet off this episode, and boy did it suffer because of the absence of the first two. Danny and Matty have been the show runners since the beginning. For Timothy Busfield's Cal Shanley to suddenly take over running the show feels totally unrealisitc (particularly the 'dead air' bit). D.L. Hughley's 'Lothario' routine went nowhere and wasn't funny, just like Harriet's constant mopping about her and Matt (sigh). Allison Jenney was funny though (did you see the White House logo on the studio wall when she was introducing Macy Grace? ;) ) and I've actually seen "Saturday Night Live" shows that went bonkers with the props like in tonight's make-believe show (not all skits at once though). Thomas Schlamme's directing, as usual, was top stuff but the Super 16mm film stock sure doesn't do the HD picture justice. I've seen upconverted DVD's on my 747i 1080p LCD that are sharper and more colorful than "Studio 60."

Whoever decided to put this episode of "Studio 60" first after the hiatus did the show a disservice. The few people tuning in to see what the big deal will not like what they see, especially since the few promos that ran showed Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet. It's a dead show but you'd think they would put the best of the last six episodes first. Oh well, like Timothy Busfield said at the end, this job sure beats digging holes for a living. Likewise, I'll take a mediocre or downright bad episode of "Studio 60" (which this was) over the alternative that will cease being an option in five weeks' time: no "Studio 60" at all! Unlike you foxeng I can't move on. I'm too emotionally attached to this show, these characters (even though Harriet is just about to drain my tolerance threshhold), this crusade of Sorkin-isms and this nice gigantic set (R.I.P.) to give up. I'm there until the bitter end, and that includes the DVD Box Set. :(

It looks like to save on the show's budget the producers decided to keep Matthew Perry, Bradley Whitford and Amanda Peet off this episode,

Just a note on this point... months ago I read at either nbc.com or tv.com that they were doing a Cal-centric show without the leads, for whatever reason. So I don't think this episode was due to the show's current status. Whether they should have chosen the first night back to show it... well, you probably have a point that that wasn't the best idea! I did enjoy it though.

It looks like to save on the show's budget the producers decided to keep Matthew Perry, Bradley Whitford and Amanda Peet off this episode, and boy did it suffer because of the absence of the first two. (

I'm on the film side so I'm not as familar with the TV contract but I am 99% sure under SAG rules that if talent is in the credits of a TV show, it means they got paid whether they appeared or not. And Perry, Whitford, and Peet were all in the credits.

Anyway, major TV stars have guaranteed contracts. Once contracted for a certain number of episodes, they'd be paid whether or not the shows were even shot.

That even applies to pilots, where actors sign multi-episode deals and get paid whether the shows are picked up or not.

Assuming they are airing the episodes in order, this episode would have been shot before the show was pulled a week early and would have been the next show to air that following week.

Once again S60 was cliched but I still enjoyed it. It had a few laughs in it. I still will look forward to future episodes, even if that is only a finite number left.

The early metered market ratings (and they are not very good) for last night's episode are posted here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10367387&&#post10367387

(The fast national ratings will be posted in the same place shortly after noon ET.)

don't know if anyone else noticed this, but last night's episode (which i found very disappointing) was shown out of order by a long shot. i'm thinking that plays into why the heavy hitters were missing.

according to IMDB, "the disaster show" is episode 21 (and the last one listed) - we left off last season on episode 16.

I just watched this and the absence of Matt and Danny really made no sense. If the show was in such a bad shape they would have been there in the trenches trying to fix it. Even if it meant Matt was holding the cue cards in a small cameo.

The slapstick and pratfalls literally fell flat, (I wish they had lost the falling tables and panthers in the air ducts stuff) and the sketches were crap as usual, but there were some funny lines. The failing monologue had some amusement and I thought Weber's delivery of "you forgot to record the color, blue?" was great. I liked the "are you using any electrical equipment" as well. Which gave me a good laugh.

The bullet effects made no sense to me. To begin with Janney's dress was so tight the squib vest should have been noticeable and when it exploded later they were located in places the dress would have shown. And why would she still be wearing it in a different scene?

They changed the theme music as well. No horns. Changing theme music in the middle of a season never bodes well. Even if it wasn't already canceled.

The fact that even though the time slot was five minutes shorter, NBC slashed six minutes from the show (while adding a minute of ad/promo time above the usual amount for a 60-minute show) may have had something to do with the fact the episode seemed very disjointed.

On the other hand, it might have been a mediocre episode even before the cuts.

Guess we'll have to wait for the DVD Box Set to see this episode in all its (mediocre?) glory. Funny how the reaction from posters seem to boil down to this one word, 'mediocre.' Neither good nor bad, just there. :(

This episode is also available on the Xbox marketplace and the running time is 36 minutes. So it wasn't just a timeslot issue for the night, they cut it down before it got there.

This episode is also available on the Xbox marketplace and the running time is 36 minutes. So it wasn't just a timeslot issue for the night, they cut it down before it got there.

Maybe it was built with filler material back when they were having trouble getting finished product to NBC and then it was hiatused and it wasn't needed so NBC decided to just burn it off now and get it out of the way??

The slapstick and pratfalls literally fell flat, (I wish they had lost the falling tables and panthers in the air ducts stuff) and the sketches were crap as usual, but there were some funny lines.
....

The bullet effects made no sense to me. To begin with Janney's dress was so tight the squib vest should have been noticeable and when it exploded later they were located in places the dress would have shown. And why would she still be wearing it in a different scene?
These two things really bothered me to. How many times do we need a breaking table gag (especially when the previous time it was used was shown in the "previously on..." recap at the beginning).

As far as the squib vest - that was silly. There's no way she would have still be wearing it - especially if it never went off. Who continues to run around on live TV with malfunctioning unexploded pyrotechnics on their body? For that matter, was it really smart to be using such effects without the proper personel to operate them in the middle of a bomb threat?

This episode is also available on the Xbox marketplace and the running time is 36 minutes. So it wasn't just a timeslot issue for the night, they cut it down before it got there.
Maybe they needed to make room for the extended "here's what's been happening that you may have forgotten in the long wait before us burning off these last few episodes" portion at the beginning....

I think it was more a summation of why the show failed than anything else. Maybe they were concentrating too much on the "main" characters after all. I thought Busfield was great, but little else.

More than anything else, this last episode serves as a singular ideal exemplar for the old wisdom that comedy is the least rewarded genre, but most dfficult to make work. The fact that a certifiably brilliant team produces such hackneyed dreck as the last installment, stands as eternal self-sufficient evidence.

The excuse that the non-comedic show-within-a-show bits reflect the real-life counterpart foundering SNL's general amusement vaccuum of recent years, won't wash, as all the dramedy bits extraneous to that production were similarly sans laughs, cachinnation, or even wee titters and giggles.

A collapsing table? Our man-on-the-prowl runs afowl of his dates for a vacation and backs into a reverse pratfall? Our show host, minus any audio cue (which certainly must be only automatic), goes into strafing spasms? Both squibs and audio malfunction at once? -- not just once, but twice? WOW! Classic stuff -- as in already mined to death from vaudeville and even back to the classical era. Sad.

The only thing I can think of is that this episode was intended as the exact correlative to the production nightmare depicted. Did our main actors die? Writers go on strike? Revenge for cancellation? -- "Oh, I'll show you how bad it can get -- take this!"

The only thing I can think of is that this episode was intended as the exact correlative to the production nightmare depicted. Did our main actors die? Writers go on strike? Revenge for cancellation? -- "Oh, I'll show you how bad it can get -- take this!"

You mean Sorkin & Co. deliberately made this last batch of shows terrible on purpose because they knew they were canceled? It'd be ironic if true because, even when he writes/produces bad TV on purpose, it's still fascinating and entertaining in its own peculiar way that it's still better than almost anything else on TV. Go to the Fred's 'Hot off the Press' thread for the past week and you'll see blogs from major TV critics dissecting last week's episode with a passion rarely given to canceled shows burning off episode in the summer (like the last season of 'The Drew Carey Show').

" It'd be ironic if true because, even when he writes/produces bad TV on purpose, it's still fascinating and entertaining in its own peculiar way that it's still better than almost anything else on TV."

He has unparalleled good-will following him into whatever he does next -- that may explain inordinate critical dissection unjustified by any one episode, but fascinating and/or even entertaining TV, it was not -- about that there can be no doubt. It was ancient sitcom humor stitched together to serve their barebones threadbare story -- not one scintilla of that presentation resonated with anything going for it, except maybe that Sorkin name.

My opinion, but the only thing that would bait me to watch another installment would be to see if the mighty have indeed fallen, or perhaps faked death, or if he in fact produced that last one as an inexplicable way of condemning the network or public for rejecting his work lately, and intends to make us miss him with generating a few more glorious installments, before sign-off.

Watched the episode over the week-end.

First, my enjoyment was minimized because of anger at myself -- set the season pass on my new DVR to record the non-HD feed instead of the HD NBC station. As soft as it looks in HD - it is really bad in SD!!

I enjoyed many parts of the episode but found Matt and Danny's absence odd. They carry the show -- especially when they are talking to each other.

Parts that worked for me:

Loved the RGB joke. Enjoyed the dead-air joke. Really liked the interaction between Cal and Janney through the earwig -- probably because I liked those two together on The West Wing.

Enjoyed the monologue with the mentions of SNL and the corrections that this is Studio 60 -- thought it was kind of funny that it treated SNL like it was a competitor show.

Parts that didn't work:

Bomb threat was kind of stupid -- whould have either been about the sketch (which then should have been shows) or a disgruntled props union member so that it fit in with the episode. Kids prank was just silly and pointless.

Hated the fact that it was out of order -- it was obvious to me (not even knowing it until reading it here today) because Jeter and the British writer had obviously solidified their relationship.

Having the blood things (whatever they are called) go off in the wrong scene was just stupid. The sound affect I could buy but not the blood.


My theory on why they cut the episode down: didn't want to end with this show, but it references stuff that happens in the shows we haven't scene yet.


I will really miss this show next year. It helped fill the West Wing void for me, and while nowhere near as good as WW, it still has its moments each episode. I am glad I get to watch the end (unlike many shows that relegate the last episodes to the Web which I can't stand)

I thought it was not all that great either. It makes me feel better to read that it was out of order, it sure seemed like it. I can see them cutting out "spoiler" material as well. Hopefully, that is true and they won't give us a hatched job on all the last few episodes.

The whole premise, while a little stretched, made me wonder just what would they do if someone called in a bomb threat to SNL right before the show went on. I can see them not being able to use the dress for whatever reason. Would they ditch the show and play a rerun instead or would they just soldier on?

Terrible episode. Can't believe NBC even felt it worthy to run. As far as the short run-time goes, maybe they were planning to film scenes with Matt and Danny, but once the show went on hiatus, figured it wasn't worth it.

More than anything else, this last episode serves as a singular ideal exemplar for the old wisdom that comedy is the least rewarded genre, but most dfficult to make work. The fact that a certifiably brilliant team produces such hackneyed dreck as the last installment, stands as eternal self-sufficient evidence.

The excuse that the non-comedic show-within-a-show bits reflect the real-life counterpart foundering SNL's general amusement vaccuum of recent years, won't wash, as all the dramedy bits extraneous to that production were similarly sans laughs, cachinnation, or even wee titters and giggles.

A collapsing table? Our man-on-the-prowl runs afowl of his dates for a vacation and backs into a reverse pratfall? Our show host, minus any audio cue (which certainly must be only automatic), goes into strafing spasms? Both squibs and audio malfunction at once? -- not just once, but twice? WOW! Classic stuff -- as in already mined to death from vaudeville and even back to the classical era. Sad.

The only thing I can think of is that this episode was intended as the exact correlative to the production nightmare depicted. Did our main actors die? Writers go on strike? Revenge for cancellation? -- "Oh, I'll show you how bad it can get -- take this!"

Precisely! (except with many more words) :) "cachinnation", that's like a cackle, right?

The blonde lawyer is apparently another attempt at Ainsley Hayes? That's not necessarily a bad thing, except for the fact that she's less attractive, less quirky, and Matt's stalker. Oh, and she was almost more compelling as the adulterous White House aide this season on 24. (Yeah, ouch.)

What is with Sorkin and writing people who can't be normally attracted to others? On the plus side, aside from the bimbo lawyer, there hasn't been any poorly written sappy romance, and the show is much more tolerable when it's not pretending that it's romantic comedy.

Also, I swear that the PQ gets progressively worse with every passing minute. My TWW DVDs have better PQ than this garbage.

Edited to rephrase: What is with Sorkin and writing people besides Tom and Lizzie who can't be normally attracted to others?

Was it a repeat tonight? My DVR didn't record anything

No repeat, lax01. It was the fifth-to-last episode.

Not that it matters at all anymore, but I liked tonight's show.

I have never been upset that the skteches we have seen in "Studio 60" weren't all that funny -- that wasn't the point of the show -- at least to me. It was always background noise, scenery almost.

And for the first time all season (with the exception of a handful of Timothy Busfield scenes) the program tonight actually gave off the vibes you feel when doing live network TV. The constant refrain about sinking ratings was fun, too. All in all I thought it was the strongest effort since the pilot.

I am not going to nit pick plot or casting problems at this stage. What is the point?

I am just going to enjoy the remaining "Studio 60" episodes as best I can -- even though after last week's episode it was almost pulled from my season pass list.

After tonight, I am back to being very sad that Aaron Sorkin missed so badly and the show didn't come close to living up to its potential.

Not too thrilled with tonight's episode since it required that people remembered an episode that aired in mid-February to get the full impact of this episode. Not only that but NBC screwed up royally by airing last week's "Studio 60" episode out-of-order, essentially letting us know that things turn out well for Tom's brother (he wouldn't have been happy on that episode if what's alluded to in the final scene of "Breaking News" were to happen). The ending of 'Breaking News' was such a downer that it makes me wonder if that was the reason the show was dropped from the NBC schedule a week early ('Breaking News' was expected to be the last episode to air before the hiatus of the show was pushed a week ahead to make room for the now-canceled "Black Donnellys"). Even a stellar cast of excellent actors would struggle with such bleak, heavy stuff like the ending of this episode (not to mention Matt's potential drug addiction), and I didn't feel like the cast was up to it (especially Nathan Corddry). Even before the Tom Jeter control room scenes though, the whole episode had a detached and completely lifeless vibe to it that was in tune with its predecessor (last February's '4AM Miracle') but wasn't particularly good or bad.

This episode shows that maybe Sorkin should have just done a drama show and completely ignore the comedy/romantic stuff (the Danny/Jordan scenes only got good when we got to the wrap party scenes toward the end and they started really talking like a show runner and network president would, respectively). Drama and comedy just don't mix well when they completely cancel each other out. Funny that even back in January-February Sorkin was already writing/incorporating his show-within-a-show's troubled ratings into the plot, essentially mirroring what Sorkin & Co. went through from March through early May when they were working on a show everybody knew was all but dead. :(

And speaking like the noob HD whore that I am let me state how butt-ugly and ****** the HD picture looked (via Time Warner Cable NYC SA 8300 HD-DVR). I've upconverted old DVD's on my Xbox 360 in my Olevia LCD that looked sharper and cleaner that the muddy mess of colorless moving images shot of Super 16mm film aired on NBC last night. Overall you'll have to lock me away to keep me from watching this show, but little by little NBC's decision to can the show are becoming clear and totally justified. :(

I haven't watched tonight's episode yet, but last week's 'Disater Show' was one of my favorite episodes so far. The things I loved about it were the things you guys are criticising it for. Loved that Matt and Danny weren't in the show, and therefore we were mostly spared the horrible daytime soap opera love stories involving them. Loved the interaction between Cal and Janney. My wife and I kept saying to eachother that all of the other episodes should have focused more on the actual live production of the show, rather than focusing so much on just the pre-show writing.

The only odd thing, which I haven't seen mentioned here. There was at least a 5 minute period where the dialog track fell out, and we only got the Music and effects tracks. Also, the picture went from HD to uprezzed window-boxed SD for a few minutes. Was that part of the show, the producers having fun with the disaster concept, or was my local affiliate screwing up the broadcast somehow?

The only odd thing, which I haven't seen mentioned here. There was at least a 5 minute period where the dialog track fell out, and we only got the Music and effects tracks. Also, the picture went from HD to uprezzed window-boxed SD for a few minutes. Was that part of the show, the producers having fun with the disaster concept, or was my local affiliate screwing up the broadcast somehow?

It was your local affiliate. I had no problems watching via the NY NBC feed on DirecTV.

No repeat, lax01. It was the fifth-to-last episode.


Weird...TV Guide and TitanTV had it listed as a Repeat...damnit...no chance in hell I'll ever get to see it in HD again...

yeah since this episode was originally scheduled to air back in february the guide providers seemed to forget that it hadn't actually aired and had it marked as a repeat. i caught this 5 minutes from the start, and was able to get it recorded just in the nick of time.

I thought it was a great episode. I am a member of a couple forums where tv shows are discussed. it's pretty interesting to me to hear the issues brought up here, and compare them to the issues brought up there (not a home theatre forum)

what's being discussed there (as is here) is the self referential ratings discussions, but over there (which i really expected to see here) is asking why they have al-jazeera on a studio monitor in studio 60.

probably a local issue, but was anyone else in the boston area treated with very low volume on the center channel for the entire episode? i had to crank the volume way up, only to be blasted out of my seat when the commercials started.

yeah since this episode was originally scheduled to air back in february the guide providers seemed to forget that it hadn't actually aired and had it marked as a repeat. i caught this 5 minutes from the start, and was able to get it recorded just in the nick of time.


Lovely...I'm going to check for next week the next time i turn the TV on

The only odd thing, which I haven't seen mentioned here. There was at least a 5 minute period where the dialog track fell out, and we only got the Music and effects tracks. Also, the picture went from HD to uprezzed window-boxed SD for a few minutes. Was that part of the show, the producers having fun with the disaster concept, or was my local affiliate screwing up the broadcast somehow?

I watched the Los Angeles KNBC DirecTV feed on CH. 83, and I experienced the audio dropout also. At first I thought that it was part of the show, because I could hear the music playing on the stage, and see their lips moving, but no dialog.
At least five minutes, when bigwigs talked in the hall.
I recorded it on my DVR, so maybe it was just because of that.

“Studio 60”: Unaware of the Ratings
By Roger Catlin Hartford Courant TV Critic in his “TV Eye” blog

At least the lead actors were back in action for the second burned off episode of “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” Thursday. Matthew Perry, Bradley Whitford and Amanda Peet were all missing from last week’s episode when it returned after being officially canceled.

Death and dying and discussions of ratings have long since started to infuse the show though. Or maybe, since this is a show about television, they would have been there all along; they only seem to stand out more in the show’s current situation.

From the start of the episode, though, Whitford’s director character Danny Tripp is urging his cast of late night sketch players not to worry about ratings in a speech that’s pure Aaron Sorkin, writer and creator:

I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about ratings around here this week and I want it out of your heads. Ratings are the business of the network and the advertisers. Our customer is the audience and they are right out there, so let’s eat ‘em up.

“Ratings are cyclical,” Perry’s character Matt Albie says later. “Who the hell knows why anybody watches anything?”

He says this while chatting with Steven Weber’s executive character, Jack Rudolph, talks about computer software that can create sketch comedy – automation may make them all obsolete.

“This is about the ratings,” Danny says to Peet’s character Jordan McDeere who is mad at him. “I asked you not to open with the war,” she says.

Opening with the war on the show within the show may reflect on including talk (or satire) of the war on the doomed series at hand. “It was in the news,” Albie says later, before it becomes a major story thread because of its connection with a cast member.

Critics are still behind the show, McDeere says.

"Critics don't pay our bills," Rudolph shoots back.

Kari Matchett, sexy and untrustworthy on any number of shows, from “Surface” to “24,” was on the show again – as the lawyer defending the network for a sexual harassment suit who herself was being a little too flirtatious to be very professional.

There were longer running stories emerging too – a possible complication in Jordan’s pregnancy, Tom’s soldier brother being kidnapped by extremists overseas, the discovery of Matt’s drug usage -- the latter of which may well reflect Sorkin’s own history in TV.

At least this provided a dramatic reason the sketches on “Studio 60” aren’t funny – the main writer is all hopped up.

http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/

Had the "repeat" issue here as well. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Unfortunately, I did not catch this until about 15 min into the broadcast. So I manually got most of the episode. Switched my Comcast DVR's S60 series record instructions to grab "ALL EPISODES" as opposed to just first-run, just in case this happens again.

Guessing I will get the gist of most of what happened/is happeing, esp since this epsode was run out of order. Anything major happen within the 1st 15 min that i should know going in? (c'mon dad, you can tell me!)

Just caught up on S60 and I gotta say I liked the episode...Lots of emotion, witty dialog and well designed character destruction (while still providing hope)...the talk about the ratings was awesome as I'm sure it really is like that on a TV set (calming fears of the cast members while managing the studio execs who want results nothing short of perfect)...and Tom Jeter's speech about Nielson and 150 college students determining their fate was great...

hmm, shades of West Wing in tonight's episode and it felt better because of it I thought. The Tom storyline I thought was pretty good but even though I quite liked the flashback I am really tired of the lead relationships.

Harriet and Matt "we've been having this argument for eight years" felt like that storyline has been going on for eight years. And no matter how they write the Danny and Jordan relationship I just don't buy it at all. It just doesn't work for me on any level.

The "8 Years Montage" was weird and not well placed in the show...it didn't work at the end of the episode...but does this mean that Matt is finally over her? Or is this just the end of the beginning? :)

I liked the episode...it was entertaining and I still enjoy the wit...

Man oh man am I ever bummed that this show is getting cancelled. I thought Breaking News and K&R were great episodes.

...the talk about the ratings was awesome as I'm sure it really is like that on a TV set (calming fears of the cast members while managing the studio execs who want results nothing short of perfect)...
Well, no, not really. The people who actually do the work in TV don't actually care about ratings. They're too busy cranking out TV on impossible schedules set by the execs and the sales departments.

The execs spend their time taking credit for a ratings blockbuster while throwing blame everywhere else if it flops.

It's kind of like every other corporation...

Ouch:

"Another burn-off episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip capped off the evening for NBC with 4.36 million viewers and a 1.7/ 5 among adults 18-49 at 10 p.m."

Well, at least that's about 50% more than hockey did.

I really wanted to like this show, but thank god its gone. It's nothing more than the West Wing in a TV studio. Same hackneyed dialogue, same sense of self-worth. Ugh, the whole thing with Jeter's brother was note for note like some of the scenes from old West Wings. Good riddance to this drivel. Hopefully Matthew Perry ends up in something better soon. As an actor he's great, but this show goes to prove that even a great actor can't save a mediocre program.

How was the PQ for you guys on the 6/7/07 airing ?

I watched it off Ch 83 (DTV) on the west coast feed.

It looked like an SD show that had been super grainy strectched. Especially the hospital scene at the end.

Dave

I hate this show, so that means I'm glad that the people who like it don't get to watch it anymore.

How was the PQ for you guys on the 6/7/07 airing ?

I watched it off Ch 83 (DTV) on the west coast feed.

It looked like an SD show that had been super grainy strectched. Especially the hospital scene at the end.

Dave

I got the west coast feed as well (KGW in Portland via Comcast) and I noticed it was grainier than usual.

I'm really going to miss this show. Sure it's preachy at times, but I also find it witty and entertaining - something I can't say for the majority of other broadcast network programming.

Thought this week's episode was the best so far -- I will miss this show next season.

We will always have Paris... I mean, the DVD Box Set brad31! ;)

Well, no, not really. The people who actually do the work in TV don't actually care about ratings. They're too busy cranking out TV on impossible schedules set by the execs and the sales departments.

Most of the shows I've worked on have taken it very seriously, to the point of posting the previous episode's ratings in a conspicuous place where the whole crew can see them. Such as right next to the monitors in video village. It's nice to know if you can focus on your work, or if you should be looking for your next gig.

I will really miss this show. It didn't have time to hit its stride/find its voice, but there was so much potential in the setting and the cast. I never watched West Wing, but I was a big fan of Sports Night. The wit and intelligence always shines through in Studio 60, as it did with that show. One measure of a good show for me is if I get as much from the unspoken as the spoken work. In Studio 60, both types of expression are rich and textured.

Thought this week's episode was the best so far -- I will miss this show next season.

I haven't had a chance to watch it yet - still on the DVR. My feeling is that even the "bad episodes" still had some moments.

I guess looking on the bright side - without S60, and the Sopranos, I'll have 2 more hours a week to try to be productive! LOL

Great show...too intelligent for most people, though.

I did notice the other day that it has a DVD posting on Amazon. Not for sale yet, but I hope it will be!