just finished seeing the pilot for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Incedible pilot, and if this episode was any indication of the rest of the series, NBC has themselves a decent new show here.

they pretty much nailed everything. Characters are already cool and intriguing, the set is absorbing, even just the name of the show is modern and pleasing sounding.

HD quality was good too. they went for that more de-saturated look, opposite of what you see on CSI Miami, but it works good.

any more thoughts?

Since last years The Office and Earl

This is the new Tina Fey (creator of all that has been lame recently on SNL) series...

No thanks!

The Tina Fey show is 30 Rock, this is the other behind the scenes show.

The critics generally love it.

Here are a few of the reviews I've been posting in the Hot Off The Press thread.

The backstage-at-a-sketch-comedy show that isn't "30 Rock" from Aaron Sorkin, the man who brought you "Sports Night" and "The West Wing" and from whose house style this departs not at all. Big sets, fast talk and a fascination with the life of a workplace are again at the heart of things. Bradley Whitford, making the leap from "West Wing," is paired with Matthew Perry as a producer-writer team hired to adrenalize a moribund "SNL"-lookalike. Timothy Busfield, Amanda Peet and D.L. Hughley are here too, making themselves fun to watch.
•By Robert Lloyd Los Angeles Times

Nutshell: New network boss (Amanda Peet) wants to revive venerable but unfunny late-night variety show, hires two troubled ex-writers (Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford) and promises them creative freedom.
Aaron’s take: Talented ensemble (D.L. Hughley, Evan Handler, Sarah Paulson) should feast on whatever comes out of writer-producer Aaron Sorkin’s (“The West Wing”) computer. But America switched off Sorkin’s last TV-show-within-a-show, “Sports Night,” and if he’s serious about “weighing in on the culture wars,” as he promised critics this summer, he could drive a lot of potential viewers over to ESPN or “CSI: Miami.”
Verdict: Appointment TV.
•By Aaron Barnhart Kansas City Star

The most buzzed-about pilot for fall actually, in this writer’s opinion, lives up to the hype. Set behind the scenes at a show very much like “Saturday Night Live,” the latest drama from the pen of Aaron Sorkin is not just a showcase for the scribe’s natural TV-writing gifts, but it provides Matthew Perry with the opportunity to give an absolutely stellar performance. Even if the rest of the season is only 80 percent as good as the pilot, I’ll be glued to this show each week.
• By Maureen Ryan Chicago Tribune


Aaron Sorkin satirizes broadcast television, a milieu he is intimately acquainted with as the creator of "The West Wing" and "SportsNight." This time, late-night TV is the conduit for Sorkin's social commentary. Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry play writing partners brought in to save a ratings-challenged "Saturday Night Live"-type show. Amanda Peet, Timothy Busfield, Steve Weber, D.L. Hughley and Sarah Paulson co-star.
• By Marisa Guthrie The New York Daily News

It has an all star cast and has Sorkin at its lead....but we've seen this story before with Sorkin (West Wing). We will see if history repeats itself again - the only difference being this time NBC is desperate.

I saw the pilot on an NBC preview DVD a few weeks ago -- I thought it was GREAT. Best thing I've seen in some time. I work in TV though, so the whole thing was right up my alley -- it'll be interesting to see if the average viewer will warm up to it.

Saw it last night up here in Canada as well. Great show. Very intense and fast paced!

From the critical praise I've been reading, I get the sinking feeling this show could be too smart for its own good (like Sports Night).

Since last years The Office and Earl

And Deal or No Deal after those.

there's only Supernanny and CSI miami up against it, are you seriously gonna tell me there are more people who would enjoy Supernanny than this show? I know there's a lot of people watch that fantasy crime show CSI and think its great entertainment, but there's not a lot of competition for Sorkin on monday night at that timeslot. What would really amaze me if this wins the timeslot over CSI miami... i hate that show so much.

The show's not a hit until the ratings come in. I'd like to see Sorkin have another hit, but generally speaking inside-Hollywood movies and TV shows tend not to play well in the heartland.

Do NBC series look as awful as NBC Sports on HDTV? I haven't watched an NBC series for several years now...since "Seinfeld," I guess. But having tuned in NBC for their football games the past two Sundays, I'm shocked at how horrible NBC-HD looks. I have to assume their series don't look as bad...

They are nowhere near as crisp as their 1080i breathren on CBS.

Do NBC series look as awful as NBC Sports on HDTV? I haven't watched an NBC series for several years now...since "Seinfeld," I guess. But having tuned in NBC for their football games the past two Sundays, I'm shocked at how horrible NBC-HD looks. I have to assume their series don't look as bad...

I think The Office looks great. I have also watched Earl and ER some and they look good. Certainly not the motion issues that NBC football is having. When I read Fredfa's response I realized I have never seen a CBS HD show other than sports.

Do NBC series look as awful as NBC Sports on HDTV? I haven't watched an NBC series for several years now...since "Seinfeld," I guess. But having tuned in NBC for their football games the past two Sundays, I'm shocked at how horrible NBC-HD looks. I have to assume their series don't look as bad...
Depends on the show. Although, yes, the quality is generally less than CBS, the quality on NBC can be very good. The Office and SVU are some of their best in my opinion, whereas Will & Grace looked like WS 480p.

Do NBC series look as awful as NBC Sports on HDTV?...

Watch Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien tonight, and then call me in the morning! ;)

aren't the drama's shot on 35mm film, and then transferred to HD?

thats a whole different story than HD video broadcasted live.

lol so this show is basically about snl...

WNBC-DT NYC Cablevision.

The video looks soft and very grainy.

It's being shown windowboxed SD here in Birmingham. Great start local NBC.

It's being shown windowboxed SD here in Birmingham. Great start local NBC.

it started out like that OTA in Buffalo, NY. Thought, 'this is gonna be great' but then after about 5 seconds I saw it switch to full HD. I guess the local affiliates have an aspect ratio button to switch as soon as SD programming (Deal or no Deal) switches to HD programming, and your affiliate forgot.

there's only Supernanny and CSI miami up against it, are you seriously gonna tell me there are more people who would enjoy Supernanny than this show? I know there's a lot of people watch that fantasy crime show CSI and think its great entertainment, but there's not a lot of competition for Sorkin on monday night at that timeslot. What would really amaze me if this wins the timeslot over CSI miami... i hate that show so much.

csi miami is pretty cheesy but it has a huge built-in audience who isn't going anywhere...i don't think Studio 60 stands a chance at beating CSI Miami, though i hope it does well. haven't seen the pilot yet but i plan to watch it in the morning.

is this a drama or more of a comedy-drama?

I recorded it for later viewing, but watched for a few minutes, and wanted to thank NBC for putting a big "NBC.com" logo in the bottom left corner (at least it looked big on my 58" screen) just for us HD viewers, while the SD program didn't have it.

Thank you for taking up valuable real estate in my picture because I choose to watch the HD broadcast...

:(

Same thing happened on WNBC-DT the video was SD till around 10:02pm.

great, great show. i really loved it. I hope i am not alone. I disliked the nbc.com bug, thats my only gripe. i thought the writing was brilliant but i expected nothing less.

I dredded this show. I give it next week and after that's done I will decide

Well, if your watching the bug you're not watching the show. Initially I was aware of it's presence, but got involved with this great show and totally forgot it was there.

Just watched the pilot (DVRed it as I was watching MNF). Awesome. I hope this show does well for NBC in the ratings, as I am already hooked. Smart writing, great cast, killer show.

Finally a show which exceeds its hype.

This show is going to win allot of awards!! This is a fantastic show and I though it offered allot of eye candy as well as good writing. I'm going to be putting my dual tuners to work on monday nights.

I'm guessing we will have some people who hate it though because Sorkin leans a little to the left. This was also the best PQ my local (wpsd) has had in a long time, but I'd also say that turning off one of there multicast channels last night probably helped more then anything.

I thought the show was awesome! But the PQ was not good!
Other shows on NBC look better. I would guess that the pilot might have been telecined to SD and upconverted. I'm hoping future episodes look much better, but it's good enough that I'll watch it "religiously" either way.

Good show + good PQ here on KNBC Los Angeles. It'll do well in the early ratings due to all the hype I'd imagine, but only time will tell if it'll last a long while.

I'd say it's the best NBC's got, though.

I absolutely loved the show and can't wait for the next episode. I love Amanda Peet and am taking a liking to seeing (lots of -ings) Matthew Perry in a semi-dramatic role.

About the picture quality (HD via cable, KNBC in LA), I found it to be very, not sharp (what's the opposite of sharp) and the colors were a bit de-saturated, but that may have just been because pretty much all of the scenes were shot in low-light/night settings. I hope they can work on picture quality to reduce the grainy look of white images and the sharpness.

"Record entire season?"

Of course.

I think some of the PQ comments are just a taste issue. Sorkin seems to like this style of PQ. If you watched some of the west wing in HD you would notice a very similar style of picture.

Liked the show, but who else wanted to slap that smile/smirk off Amanda Peet's face?

Also: you think they would have had enough money to use a different font for the credits than "The West Wing".

I think some of the PQ comments are just a taste issue. Sorkin seems to like this style of PQ. If you watched some of the west wing in HD you would notice a very similar style of picture.

Probably the same director of photography. Like Spielberg's DOP loves film grain.

I think some of the PQ comments are just a taste issue. Sorkin seems to like this style of PQ. If you watched some of the west wing in HD you would notice a very similar style of picture.

No, West Wing looked much better to me. This looked like widescreen SD.

It's so refreshing to see a show on network T.V. with some "balls" again. I'm looking forward to watching this for the short time that it is on the air (I hope I am wrong).

I liked the pilot quite a bit, I'm just not so sure how well it 's going to play to the hoi polloi and they're the ones that drive the ratings.

It does have a West Wing style photography, may be even a little softer.

I haven't watched much NBC lately, is that the new bug placement, on the left instead of the right?

I thought the show was awesome! But the PQ was not good!
Other shows on NBC look better. I would guess that the pilot might have been telecined to SD and upconverted.

To my eyes, this had a look that suggests it was shot on 16mm. The size and quantity of the grain as well as the resolution (or lack of) appeared about the same as other known 16mm shows such as "The O.C." Perhaps someone with inside knowledge of the production will chime in.

Even if it were shot on VHS though, this would still be my new favorite show ...

I liked the pilot quite a bit, I'm just not so sure how well it 's going to play to the hoi polloi and they're the ones that drive the ratings.

It does have a West Wing style photography, may be even a little softer.

I haven't watched much NBC lately, is that the new bug placement, on the left instead of the right?

I think it might be the first time it's been used, but I'm not sure. However I think we are under estimating the audience. I think the fact there are so few well written shows out there will help S60 (I'm no longer going to type Studio 60 every time I'm lazy). Nbc has been struggling and now they finally have a show that could be a hit. I'd say they would be complete morons not push the heck out of it. I think NBC plans to stick with this show even if it starts out slow. Why else would you put this up against CSI Miami and MNF?

I haven't watched much NBC lately, is that the new bug placement, on the left instead of the right?

I think this just started on Monday night, based on complaints in another thread. I hate bugs, but didn't think this was any worse than others, except for the fact that it had to animate on with an "HD" logo on every segment. Not sure what they are thinking by putting it on the left -- I hope they're not leaving the other corner open for the local station to put in their bug simultaneously. :eek: I fear that is the next step -- the bug madness will never end.

I think this just started on Monday night, based on complaints in another thread. I hate bugs, but didn't think this was any worse than others, except for the fact that it had to animate on with an "HD" logo on every segment. Not sure what they are thinking by putting it on the left -- I hope they're not leaving the other corner open for the local station to put in their bug simultaneously. :eek: I fear that is the next step -- the bug madness will never end.
No kidding. I did like that it was fairly transparent.

What I don't like is the CBS deal where they put up a The CW color green block in the lower left touting available in HD, it's just the kind of thing you'd see on a cablenet, looks cheap and very unattractive.

I didn't know if I could believe Bradley Whitford as anything except Josh Lymon but I think for me he has broken that mold. A sleazy Josh!! (Is that redundant?) ("You had him up for 53 seconds? If you had left him on for 54 seconds, I would have given you a raise.")

Liked the show, but who else wanted to slap that smile/smirk off Amanda Peet's face?


That's not how I'd choose to remove it... :p

Really enjoyed this show. Will be interesting to see how much the show actually challenges the premise at the beginning that TV has become a slave to the masters they serve and afraid to challenge anything.

So will Stuido 60 talk alot about challenging the status quo or will it follow thru and do so?

I caught the second half of the show (was watching "Weeds" on Showtime) I was REALLY impressed with what i saw. The cast is great, the writing seems real solid. This may be my big DVR show for this season.

Except for Amanda Peet's character (I just don't buy her as a network president, although that could change if her acting improves) this was a home run for me. I loved 'Sports Night,' watched it religiously, bought the DVD Box Set and haven't seen another show like it ('West Wing' left me completely cold and never really caught my fancy) until last night. Judd Hirsch is already on my short blank list for candidates for Best Emmy in a guest starring role (is his character returning in future episodes?) and the dialogue exchanges between the characters were classic Sorkin. Picture looked OK as SD letterbox but this is not a show one watches for eye-candy but for the peformances and dialogue. Tom's direction, as always, is flawless. Can't wait for next week and I really hope the ratings are helped by how low-scoring the Jaguars-Steelers NFL game was at that time.

Absolutely loved the show but loathed Amanda Peet. The rest of the cast were firing on all cylinders, but she just stood there like a deer in headlights, completely incapable of delivering her lines up to the same standard as the rest of the cast. The role feels like it was written for Felicity Huffman, who could have knocked it out of the park if she weren't obligated to Desperate Housewives.

NBC as usual sucks for technical presentation. Here in Boston, the show was broadcast in SD letterbox and 2.0 audio for about the first five minutes before kicking in to HD and 5.1. The picture was just about the worst HD I've ever seen, looking softer than some VHS tapes I own. In fact, the first 5 minutes of SD letterbox were sharper than when it switched to HD. The only benefit to the switch was that it finally filled my screen.

The 5.1 audio was also awful. The dialogue was so low I had to crank my volume about 15 db higher than normal, which then nearly shook my room apart when the 3-6 Mafia started performing.

Regardless, I hope the early ratings are promising. I want this show to survive.

It took over 4 minutes for WNBC-DT to flip the HD switch, via Cablevision. PQ was soft.

I thought that it was too slow paced and predictable - like The West Wing toward the end. The worst character wasn't Peet's but her boss. What a loser!

Whitford played Whitford again, Perry was ok. I'll try it again next week, then decide if it merits a Season Pass.

How long before they drop "on Sunset Strip" from the title?

I'm with dad1153 on this one. My wife and I loved the premiere when we saw it on DVD a month ago and loved it again last night. This is going to be a great show.

And yes, I still pull out my Sports Night DVDs every now & then. :)


tim

Liked the show, but who else wanted to slap that smile/smirk off Amanda Peet's face?


Except for Amanda Peet's character (I just don't buy her as a network president, although that could change if her acting improves) this was a home run for me.

Absolutely loved the show but loathed Amanda Peet.

Hmmmm, sensing a pattern here... :p

And just yesterday, she announced she's pregnant (3 months along)! Which means they either have to write it into the script or try to shoot around it, so forget any eye-candy factor. Wonder if they're regretting the decision to hire her at this point? If so, too bad, they're stuck with her now.

She sort of reminds me of Annabeth Gish (currently playing Eileen Caffee on Showtime's outstanding 'Brotherhood') as an actress who just isn't capable of displaying much emotion or range; very wooden. Josh is right; too bad Felicity Huffman's considerable talents are being wasted on 'Housewives'. You know she would have been Sorkin's first choice for this role.

I really enjoyed the pilot. M.Perry looks like he will be in a roll again..

^ 3 Minutes to switch, you are lucky.. WTVJ took about 15 Minutes :mad:

I was very impressed with the show last night, writing was good, and the production values top notch. Very entertaining and this isn't my usual type of show.

Picture quality was ok here in Seattle, wasn't the best I have seen, but the only SD was during the preview for next week. I did notice that the sound mix was VERY quiet though. After it finished my local news came on and nearly blasted our ear drums because I had the volume up so loud.

So far so good. I am usually not much into non-serial-dramas, as they just turn into a big soap opera for me, but I am definitely giving this one a chance to earn its place on my DVR.

saw it last night. there is now wow factor there nor gets me riveted to the lazy-boy. cant throw this into the "must see tv" pile. doesnt work for me. i will reserve it from the chopping block by giving it maybe 1 or 2 more eps and then decide...........unless something more compelling comes along at the same time.

I liked the episode, although I don't know if I'll like it after a season. However, the picture was awful here in the Philly market on Comcast. It looked like noise-reduction was set at the mazimum level: not much detail, ghosting of images when characters moved and even a little bit of "clay face." What a disappointment, considering how most other NBC shows look (NFL excluded).

The preliminary ratings for "Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip" had some good news/bad news elements for NBC.

The show did about 10 percent better than "Las Vegas" did last year in the same time slot.

But it finished well behind "CSI:Miami". Perhaps more troubling is that it lost 15% of its 18-49 audience in the second half hour.

Really enjoyed this show. Will be interesting to see how much the show actually challenges the premise at the beginning that TV has become a slave to the masters they serve and afraid to challenge anything.

So will Stuido 60 talk alot about challenging the status quo or will it follow thru and do so? For example, will they show this supposed "Crazy Christians" sketch (and not just talk about it during/after the fact)? If it's as good and "controversial" as they say it is and actually air it, then that will give me an incentive to see if this show has any true potential.

(From Marc Berman’s Tuesday, September 19, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )
Primetime Ratings For Monday, September 18th

(On) NBC, the expanded second-season premiere of Deal or No Deal kicked off with a healthy 10.0/15 in the overnights, 15.61 million viewers and a 4.9/13 among adults 18-49, ranking first overall in the overnights, total viewers and adults 18-49 from 8-10 p.m. That led into the debut of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which finished a solid second behind CBS’ CSI: Miami with a 10.3/16 in the overnights, 13.39 million viewers and a 5.0/13 among adults 18-49 at 10 p.m. The one positive point immediately worth noting for Studio 60 was retention out of the last half-hour of Deal or No Deal (Overnights: 11.3/16; Viewers: 18.10 million; A18-49: 6.0/14) of 91 percent in the overnights and 83 percent among adults 18-49. Potentially concerning for Studio 60, however, was a loss of audience at 10:30 p.m. off 11 percent in the overnights (10.9/16 to 9.7/15), 2.37 million viewers (14.57 to 12.20) and 15 percent among adults 18-49 (5.4/13 to 4.6/12). Let’s see what happens next week.

Why else would you put this up against CSI Miami and MNF?

It was a panic move, if you'll recall. Originally it was slated to be on Thursdays, following "Earl" and "The Office" but once ABC moved "Grey's Anatomy" there, NBC switched "Studio 60" to Monday's. It's going to be hammered by "CSI: Miami" I'm afraid, but hopefully it pulls in enough of an audience for NBC to stick with it or move it to another night when one if its new shows fails.

I enjoyed the premier, including Amanda Peet. I'm not surprised though, I've pretty much enjoyed anything penned by Mr. Mushroom. :) I did think it came together a bit too quickly - Hirsch getting canned, Perry and Whitford going from an awards ceremony to their new gig by sunrise - but maybe that's how it really works in La-La Land. Also, I hope his infatuation with the Christian Right dies down after a couple of episodes. I'm no religious zealot, but the topic is so old and it's really not much of a challenge to use them as a target. If he wants to show balls, take a few swipes at Islamic radicals - see what that gets him. :)

Looking forward to future episodes.

Loved it, loved it, loved it. Great show, I saw the pilot earlier and the second viewing was even better (although I do agree, the PQ looked pretty soft but good overall). Fast paced, smart, witty, and very engrossing. Sorkin can suck you into a world and make you feel as if you are right there in the middle of it all.

If CSI Miami consistenly beats this in the ratings towards the end of the season I will have lost all faith in the American viewing public, not that I had much to begin with.

Perhaps more troubling is that it lost 15% of its 18-49 audience in the second half hour.

I fall in that age group but I watched the whole thing. I did think the middle was a little slow after the opening bit, but it picked back up towards the end. I am determined to give this show a try.

It was a panic move, if you'll recall. Originally it was slated to be on Thursdays, following "Earl" and "The Office" but once ABC moved "Grey's Anatomy" there, NBC switched "Studio 60" to Monday's....


I think it was a very smart move (even though it was embarrassing to NBC execs) after the ABC surprise of switching "Grey's" to Thursday. "Studio 60" would have been truly buried there.

I think it will do just fine long-term against the glitzy though cardboard "CSI:Miami".

And when ESPN has dog MNF games throughout the season, it will probably pick up more viewers.

NBC clearly recalls that "West Wing" was always, even in its later years, a top-rated show among the highest income groups. And they do interest advertisers. They aren't all that easy to reach in big numbers on prime time network TV.

Like Sorkin, the "bug" placement was on the left. The HD and "look" was bad here in Maine and the HD on our cable system is very good with other shows. They may be trying very hard to be artsy and cute with this program about television. We'll give it one or two more looks to decide if this is one we want to watch.

'Studio' Worth Studying
By John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable at the BCBeat blog

NBC's self-referential Studio 60 debuted Tuesday night, equal parts West Wing in La La Land and a Late Night take on Sports Night.

It started self-indulgently, with a rant against the TV industry, the FCC, the war in Iraq, reality shows, "the man's" celebration of worm-eating over scripted brilliance and "art," and the religious right and more, as though creator Aaron Sorkin was taking the opportunity to exercise personal and professional demons on our dime. Of course it's his dime, too.

I don't discourage TV as political platform. I'm all for social conscience so long as it does not beat on me with its fists but rather persuades me with its rhetoric in service to the overall story.

Hammering the Howard Beale-ness of the on-air blow-up of the veteran Studio 60 show-runner--played by Judd Hirsch--did not succeed in turning the self-indulgence into seamless plot point.

But, hey, it was the first show and maybe that was a "get it out of your system in the first 10 minutes" kind of a thing. I hope so.

That said, the show grew on me as the hour went along. There is something about it being Hollywood that makes me care less about the people than a show about the President.Not not because I care less about Hollywood, but because the D.C. folks are dealing with "fate of the free world" stuff, while the Hollywood types are dealing with "let's get the bong out of the dressing room" type stuff.

Still, as I said, it grew on me. The cast is strong and so is Sorkin's writing.

The chemistry between actors and characters will be the key to this show, particularly among Bradley Whitford, Matthew Perry and Timothy Busfield, all veterans of West Wing.

Things I liked: Ed Asner as new head of the NBS (NBC with an S); Timothy Busfield (always).

Things I didn't like: What appeared to the shot at Robert Smigel's SNL animation in the dissing of Studio 60's "Periperal Vision Man" animated bit; the telegraphed-from-across-the-room plot point of our heros having written the "Crazy Christians" sketch whose axing by standards and practices prompts the Hirsch tirade.

All in all, an uneven but interesting start, and worth sticking with a while to see where it is going.

http://broadcastingcable.com/blog/1380000138.html

The most important (and often forgotten here) folks in TV, the advertisers, seem to love "Studio 60"...

Media Agencies Buzz With Praise for 'Studio 60'
By Claire Atkinson AdAge.com September 19, 2006

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Broadcast TV's fall season opened last night, and Watercooler decided to do ring up the media agencies to see what people thought of NBC's brightest hope, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." The good news is media buyers were enthusiastic this morning over the hotly anticipated, Aaron Sorkin-penned drama. The so-so news is its premiere charted respectable but not boffo ratings.

Veteran TV watcher Shari Anne Brill, Carat VP-programming, liked that 'the interplay between Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford made it seem like they were the best of buddies.'

In the ad-friendly demographic of 18- to 49-year-olds, CBS's stalwart "CSI: Miami" won the 10 p.m. hour with a 5.7 rating/14 share. "Studio 60" came in a close second with 5.0/12, a solid showing for a new show, according to fast national Nielsen Media Research data. (A rating point for 18- to 49-year-olds is equal to about 1.3 million viewers.)

"Studio 60," which didn't exactly have a compatible lead-in audience-wise with game show "Deal or No Deal," suffered a little in the second half hour as it found its natural audience. The drama about a barely fictional network, NBS, scored a 5.4 rating in the first half hour but dropped to a 4.6 rating in the second half hour, averaging 5.0 for the hour. Still, even if the numbers aren't huge, the media-buying community is predicting a healthy future for the show, which met its 5.0 upfront ratings guarantee to advertisers.

Deutsch's Peter Gardiner, partner and chief media officer, whose second-favorite show is "CSI: Miami," tuned in to get a five-minute taste of "Studio 60" and was immediately hooked. Mr. Gardiner bought the show for his clients. "It's the buzz around here this morning. Everyone is talking about it. The way they filmed it was different; it had a 'West Wing' feel. I liked the chaptering they did with the characters introduced. Everyone here was mesmerized. I took me a few moments to believe Amanda Peet as the network president, but she had me in the end."

NBC gave viewers almost 20 minutes of the drama, about life on the set of a network comedy, show before switching to a commercial break. Dell was the first advertiser to appear in the break, and its ad was introduced with a voice-over identifying it as a sponsor of "Studio 60." Hasbro's Monopoly Here and Now, Chase, Old Navy, and Ask.com were all in the first break, and movies such as Columbia Pictures' "All the King's Men" and Warner Bros. "Departed" had a heavy presence. Others that appeared in later ad pods included Victoria's Secret, Lindt truffles, Jet Blue, Panasonic, Apple's iPod Nano and the Gap.

"I love 'Studio 60,' I believe it will be the most affluent, most educated show on network TV," said veteran TV watcher Shari Anne Brill, Carat VP-programming. "[Writer and creator] Aaron Sorkin is a master storyteller, and the interplay between Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford made it seem like they were the best of buddies." The two play top comedy writers who return to lead an ailing show.

http://adage.com/print?article_id=111959

Looking forward to catching this show, luckily I remembered to Tivo it last night.

lol so this show is basically about snl...

While it's easy for most j6p to think that, it appears it more an autobiography of Sorkin.

Writer. Drug issues. Difficult to work with. Fired by the network when West Wing had better (not best) ratings than where it ended with. Network now needs him back to help resurrect the floundering network (Else why is their a new network chief?). Writer to save the day.

You must also suspend reality to believe that the management of a network would not be at a Writers Guild award but decided to have a dinner for their top brass at the owners home and boycott the awards.

Things I didn't like: What appeared to the shot at Robert Smigel's SNL animation in the dissing of Studio 60's "Periperal Vision Man" animated bit;

i thought i was the only one that saw ACE/GARY on that poster... lol...


FWIW, IMO this is starting to look like WW2 to me...

Was it just me (comcast hd in Chicago) or was the pq really, really rank? The victoria's secrert 4:3 comm had better clarity. Really, this looked like 16:9 sd. Period. This was not, no way, hd native broadcast. Good show, but the something's gotta change with the pq, intended or not.

i thought i was the only one that saw ACE/GARY on that poster... lol...


FWIW, IMO this is starting to look like WW2 to me...

At least they got the Leno - Letterman ratings reference right.

I thought the beginning was really slow. If I hadn't committed to watching the entire episode because of all the positive word-of-mouth, I would have turned it off after 5 minutes. Hearing the audience warm-up while we toured the set was dull. The Hirsch "Network" speach was derivative, and it was even worse that they continued to reference Network in the news footage and network brass meeting for another 5 minutes after that.

However, once the setting changed to the WGA Awards, I thought the show took off. At that point, characters gelled, the dialog became interesting, and I was hooked back in. I didn't mind Amanda Peete's character. I thought Mathew Perry's ex was much worse. I don't buy the born-again sketch comediane/singer character at all.

Also, if you are going to spoof the Ambiguously Gay Duo, you should to do it more cleverly than Peripheral Vison Man.

All-in-all, I'd rate it an 8.5 out of ten, after a slow start. I'm willing to give it another week or two to grow on me. That's more than I can say about any of the other new shows I've seen so far.

Best part was when the Standards & Practices guy was trying to shove a D2 cassette into a VHS machine to review an on-air meltdown and couldn't figure out why it wouldn't fit.

Network President :
"We need it on 1/2" !!!! ...for the love of... We work in television !!!"

Network President :
"We need it on 1/2" !!!! ...for the love of... We work in television !!!"

And another great line that went something like this:

Perry: "I have no reason to trust you, and every reason not to."

Peet: "Why?"

Perry: "You work in television."

Yeah, should be pretty good for the "Inside Baseball" aspect....

You might be surprised how many people who work in TV management would make that D2 tape mistake.

(But then since you have seen some of the programs they put on the air, maybe you wouldn't be all that surprised.)

For example, will they show this supposed "Crazy Christians" sketch (and not just talk about it during/after the fact)? If it's as good and "controversial" as they say it is and actually air it, then that will give me an incentive to see if this show has any true potential.

It'd be a big mistake, imo, to show that sketch, at least in its entirety. It will be far more effective if each viewer "imagines" the controversial sketch on their own terms. Nothing would be worse than if they showed the sketch and everyone went "meh... that's not so bad."

It'd be a big mistake, imo, to show that sketch, at least in its entirety. It will be far more effective if each viewer "imagines" the controversial sketch on their own terms. Nothing would be worse than if they showed the sketch and everyone went "meh... that's not so bad."


Great observation. Too bad you aren't a network programming exec.

I don't buy the born-again sketch comediane/singer character at all.Yeah, the basis of the character is a little strange, but if that's what it takes to get Mrs Isringhausen, er, I mean Sharah Paulson back on screen I can go with it :). I liked the pilot a lot. Because it's so directly deriviative of several shows I actually found it a little distracting, but I think that will subside as it moves along and develops some of it's own uniqueness (hopefully anyway). Finally a decent show for the 10:00 PM Monday slot!


ron

I thought the beginning was really slow. If I hadn't committed to watching the entire episode because of all the positive word-of-mouth, I would have turned it off after 5 minutes. Hearing the audience warm-up while we toured the set was dull. The Hirsch "Network" speach was derivative, and it was even worse that they continued to reference Network in the news footage and network brass meeting for another 5 minutes after that.




I was looking forward to the show and I follow those same comments above. But I didn't wait to see more of the show and decided to watch MNF and while I was recording CSI.

I'll have to try and watch the show again.

Great observation. Too bad you aren't a network programming exec.

Plus, RDK006 might be able to load a tape unaided. I smell a new career for this one...

I've already deleted the episode off my tivo so I can't go back and confirm, but didn't Matthew Perry's character say something complaining about the networks use of the bug?

I've already deleted the episode off my tivo so I can't go back and confirm, but didn't Matthew Perry's character say something complaining about the networks use of the bug?


I can't tell you who said it, but yes there was a comment.

The real problem I saw while watching the first half hour (or 22 minutes if you prefer) was that the show was trying to set up very complex characters in a short amount of time and I wondered if the average viewer would get it.

So much inside stuff made me ponder as well. For example, I don't expect the general public to wonder why Broadcast Execs were not at a Writers Guild Awards (presumably at the Beverly Hilton as most every awards with sit down dinners such as the one shown are held there though no establishing shots were shown and uness you have actually attended the Golden Globes you probably wouldn't know that), but how do you go from an awards presentation to a hotel room? Things of this nature have the potential to confuse the average viewer. As someone noted, shows too inside have problems.

But bottom line is introducting that many complex characters in the first show had me wondering if it was too ambitious (use Lost for example of proper setup) and judging by the 18-49 ratings change in the last half hour that is what I feared most.

Our family turned it off half way through and went to CSI due to the lousy NBC HDTV picture that was broadcast over the air in our area (Salt Lake City). The new logo and its position was also very irritating. Why do they shoot themselves in the foot and then wonder why they are losing viewers? Idiots.

Watched it off the DVR tonight. I thought it was smart, well-written, and had good acting (except Amanda Peet). I'll be amazed if it lasts beyond this season.

My sense is that it's too much of an insider show to play in Peoria. Maybe it will attract the high income West Wing crowd, but I think the politics of West Wing had broader appeal than the politics of network broadcasting in this show.

CURSES!!! my lump of a dvr failed to record it. i'm about to go all office space up on this dang scientific atlanta box.

any chance they will re-air this? i guess i'll go look at http://www.classicthemes.com/images/NBCpeacock1956.jpg.com to see if they have it on streaming video.

re: streaming

it is.

You have to admit, Amanda Peet was pretty funny when she quiped "I've got a dual masturbation program in development right now".

My random thoughts:

I was amused to see Snuffy did the music. Gotta love that name.

I'm in the "I wish Amanda Peet would stop smiling" crowd, but I did like her one liners.

It reminded of early West Wing. When the finale aired, they also did the first episode. That first episode had a lot more humour than WW finished with. Hopefulyl a show about comics making jokes to push social / politcal commentary will hold more viewers than a show about politicians "politic"-ing to push social / political commentary.

I don't know if "Peripheral Vision Man" was a knock on TV Funhouse. Yeah there was a cartoon on the monitors in the background, but when I saw it I thought it was a generic cartoon intro to the bit. Also I thought they only referred to it as a sketch. And that they needed the writers to extend it which would be impossible to do with animation the night of production. Besides, everyone knows Smigel is funny and Peripherial Visionman wasn't supposed to be.

I'm in the 18-49 crowd and I'll be watching from now on.

any chance they will re-air this?

Bravo will repeat the 'Studio 60' pilot episode Wednesday Sept. 20th and Sunday Sept. 24th at 11:00PM ET/PT. You'd think Universal NBC would pre-empt one its 10,000 'Law & Order: Criminal Intent' Bravo repeats on Sunday to show 'Studio 60' in primetime but noooooo! :)

Was it just me (comcast hd in Chicago) or was the pq really, really rank? The victoria's secrert 4:3 comm had better clarity. Really, this looked like 16:9 sd. Period. This was not, no way, hd native broadcast. Good show, but the something's gotta change with the pq, intended or not.

I'm certain you're correct: 16:9 SD. I'm hoping that it was just for the pilot.

Bravo will repeat the 'Studio 60' pilot episode Wednesday Sept. 20th and Sunday Sept. 24th at 11:00PM ET/PT. You'd think Universal NBC would pre-empt one its 10,000 'Law & Order: Criminal Intent' Bravo repeats on Sunday to show 'Studio 60' in primetime but noooooo! :)

Imagine NBC/Universal rebroadcasting the pilot episode on UHD. Wouldn't that hook a few more viewers for NBC?

Imagine NBC/Universal rebroadcasting the pilot episode on UHD. Wouldn't that hook a few more viewers for NBC?

If NBC had a sense of humor it would pre-empt this week's repeat of Saturday Night Live and air Studio 60 and a 'New Season' 30m infomercial without telling anyone. It would be a heck of a cool programming stunt that would get some free press for 'Studio 60' (which would help because it's been getting so little mention in the press ;)).

I was disappointed in this show and if I had something else to watch on my Tivo I would have deleted it. I gave it the full hour and will try 1 more episode but for me I thought it left a lot to be desired as well as several co workers who watched it live Monday night and all changed the channel. The PQ was as usual for NBC just plain terrible.

I've already deleted the episode off my tivo so I can't go back and confirm, but didn't Matthew Perry's character say something complaining about the networks use of the bug?

He was complaining about "wrapping the (American) flag around the network bug" not the about the bug itself.

I agree with many others that the selection of Amanda Peet for that role was a serious error. She is totally unbelievable, looking way too innocent and inexperienced (and babe-like) to fit that role. Felicity Huffman would be a much better candidate, or someone like her.

Here in Houston, the picture was very un-sharp and I thought there was something wrong with my DVR.

If the show focuses on the lack of risk taking by the networks vs cable, it might capture an audience. But if it focuses more on inside television politics/drama, it will lose many viewers including me. I might also be attracted to this show more if they portray the "born again Christian" comedian as sincere and forthright person in a world of opposites, instead of falling for the normal left leaning viewpoint usually shown on TV of a such a character.

Lastly, the show dragged quite a bit in the middle and lacked much of a hook at the end to draw me back next week.

I think part of the show's goal is to demonstrate that a woman who appears to be innocent, inexperienced and babe-like can actually run a network better than grey-haired loud-mouthed know-it-all jerks. You're not supposed to find her believable at this point.

I think part of the show's goal is to demonstrate that a woman who appears to be innocent, inexperienced and babe-like can actually run a network better than grey-haired loud-mouthed know-it-all jerks. You're not supposed to find her believable at this point.

Exactly. And all of the smiling I took as an "I'll show you how I work this" statement without words. I think that as this moves on and she actually starts working (her first day wasn't for another 3 days), you'll see the smile go away or she will start with some sharper humor to the bosses. She has to break them down a bit first.

I watched it online and quite enjoyed it. I like the Amanda Peet character too. If this show is a success get ready for 5-night-a-week spinoffs though:

Studio 60: Peripheral Vision Man
Studio 60: Studio 59
Studio 60: Janatorial Unit
Studio 60: B-Level Celebrity Guest Star Edition
Studio 60: Rehab
Studio 60: Cancelled Prematurely Only to Re-Air on HDNET Two Years Later

I'm still on the fence about this. Unfortunately I think the show reached a high point too early with the opening Judd Hirsch tirade, so the rest was a bit underwhelming.

Matthew Perry was good and I liked Amanda Peet's fast talker character but the rest of the characters never raised my eye level from the stupid NBC bug!

I think they are taking the SNL parody too far as well. The more they try and stick in all those little knowing references, the more aware you are that you are watching a TV show about another TV show. Larry Sanders played it for laughs so the references worked. It doesn't translate nearly as well when they are trying to be dramatic and all you are thinking about is SNL ...

I think part of the show's goal is to demonstrate that a woman who appears to be innocent, inexperienced and babe-like can actually run a network better than grey-haired loud-mouthed know-it-all jerks. You're not supposed to find her believable at this point.

The only problem with that is, in reality, she would never be hired in that position in the first place.

Four things:
The picture quality sucked. The Matthew Perry shots were out of focus and I think it was done deliberately. Either, he has it in his contract, or they wanted us to feel "numb" like he does from the pain killers.
The bug HAS to go. The first time I saw it, I thought to myself, "Oh no! They figured out and upgraded their HD system to do graphics over HD." If you're not going to get rid of the big, NBC, at least decrease it's opacity by %50.
I like Amanda Peet. I have nothing against her. I thought she was pretty good in A Lot Like Love and Identity, but this was a miscast. About half was through the show, I was trying to figure out exactly what her characters role really was. The President of the network? I still have a hard time believing that? So who is the guy she's always answering to? I thought the president doesn't answer to anyone. I think I'm confused.
This was a good show and I'll watch it again. It stays on the DVR for now.

Studio 60: Cancelled Prematurely Only to Re-Air on HDNET Two Years Later
That's awesome!!! Love that joke. Seems like HDNet does a lot of this. Don't they?

The only problem with that is, in reality, she would never be hired in that position in the first place.

Not necessarily..... I believe the president of ABC was a woman younger than Peet is in real life.

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, forget the "babe factor"; she's already gotten herself pregnant. Swell thing to do to the producers of a new show on which you've just been hired. :rolleyes:

Not necessarily..... I believe the president of ABC was a woman younger than Peet is in real life.

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, forget the "babe factor"; she's already gotten herself pregnant. Swell thing to do to the producers of a new show on which you've just been hired. :rolleyes:

It's not her age or sex. I think she comes across as totally unbelievable that she would be hired in that position, just as I would if it was somone like Heather Locklear. I like Amanda Peet, and she's not a bad actress, I just think she's totally miscast.

Maybe they should bring back Mary Tyler Moore. ;)

It's not her age or sex. I think she comes across as totally unbelievable that she would be hired in that position, just as I would if it was somone like Heather Locklear. I like Amanda Peet, and she's not a bad actress, I just think she's totally miscast.

Maybe they should bring back Mary Tyler Moore. ;)

Maybe we haven't yet seen what strengths made her successful in becoming a network boss at such young age? How about we give her character some time to be fully explored and developed?

After all we are judging her [character] based on 10 minutes of screen time in the very first episode of the show.

Well said, I can only comment based on her first 10 minutes of smiling like a little schoolgirl.

The only problem with that is, in reality, she would never be hired in that position in the first place.

Why not? Her resume, read by Ed Asner at the dinner party, was certainly impressive enough to get her the gig.

The fact that she was able to get a whole new leadership team installed for the show in just a few hours (while everyone else was in crisis panic mode) says something for her abilities. And the fact that she chose matt perry instead of matt leblanc has to count for something.

ok, ok, she may win me over. I just hope this show is on long enough for her character to be developed.

Love the cast
Love the writing
Love the premise
Will it keep me interested? Will they be able to keep enough drama?

I'll be watching next week...

Yah this show was off the charts good. A breath of fresh air for TV. Its smart and funny. By far this and The Office are the two best comedy/"dramadies" on TV right now.

Peripheral Vision Man reminded me more of the Mr. Short Term Memory Loss and Mr. No Depth Perception sketches from the 90s. The typical SNL one premise sketch which tells you the joke before it starts. I didn't think of Smiegel at all.

Got around to watching Studio 60 tonight and I liked it enough to stick with it and see where it goes. I had to watch the first few minutes a second time to catch the Peripheral Vision Man cartoon, and instead of being a dig at the real SNL cartoons, it should be a replacement for some of their un-funny stuff.

Took a few screenshots while PVM was on a monitor behind Amanda Peet:

http://img127.imagevenue.com/loc507/th_28582_ST60_3_122_507lo.jpg (http://img127.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=28582_ST60_3_122_507lo.jpg) http://img102.imagevenue.com/loc488/th_28587_ST60_4_122_488lo.jpg (http://img102.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=28587_ST60_4_122_488lo.jpg) http://img134.imagevenue.com/loc459/th_28588_ST60_5_122_459lo.jpg (http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=28588_ST60_5_122_459lo.jpg)

I loved the show!! Great characters. Too bad NBC NY still can't throw the HD switch at the beginning of the show. This is the 3rd year now I have to watch show after show on NBC in SD-HD-SD-HD.

The fact that she was able to get a whole new leadership team installed for the show in just a few hours (while everyone else was in crisis panic mode) says something for her abilities. And the fact that she chose matt perry instead of matt leblanc has to count for something.
I respect movies and especially TV shows that introduce a character and then disprove all the initial assumptions I've made about that character. I thought the Amanda Peet character was a mistake from the first minute but by the end of the pilot and I was wondering why I had been thinking that.

TV shows almost always take the easy route and give us characters that everyone in the audience will accept as believable from the second we see them. They want instant ratings and I don't think this show is going to get that. Good thing it's on NBC.

I missed about 20 minutes out of the middle of the show on Monday so I rewatched the whole thing last night on Bravo in letterboxed SD. Interestingly enough, it looked much better... Maybe not Sorkin's fault after all.

I almost didn't rewatch it due to comments about the middle dragging, but I'm really glad I did. Much happened during that part of the pilot that was integral in setting things up and I personally didn't think it dragged at all. I liked the pilot the first time and liked it even more the second time around. Being able to actually see what was going on didn't hurt ;). And I watched Peet's performance more critically this time and I really thought she did a fine job. Yeah, the smiling off into the "hallowed studio" was a bit over the top maybe, but I think that's just a Sorkin thing. For a first EP/pilot I really thought it was a good showing myself. I mean really, the vast majority of shows on the air never reach the level of cohesion S60 showed right out of the gate IMO.


ron

Took a few screenshots while PVM was on a monitor behind Amanda Peet:



The style is a copy of Smigels. But on Studio 60 the PVM sketch is an actual sketch, not a cartoon. The cartoon is just the intro. This is apparent because when they dropped the Crazy Christians sketch they compared the timing of the two. The PVM sketch was shorter so the producution room folks said they would have to add 25 seconds and make up the rest. That wouldn't be possible in a cartoon.

I think I'm in the minority here. I was looking forward to this show, but it was a little off to me. I did like it overall, but did anyone else think that it was a little TOO smart and snappy? Every character was zipping off their witty comebacks without a moment of thought. I thought the dialogue was delivered too quickly. It definitely came accross to me as written too much for insiders. I just got the feeling of "Look how witty we all are that work in television" "Every one of us are ballsy, smart, witty, and brave."

I did like the plot line, and love the cast, I just thought everyone was one notch too high. It was interesting enough for me to keep watching though.

Every character was zipping off their witty comebacks without a moment of thought.

You've seen a TV show before, right?

You've seen a TV show before, right?

Oh, I get it now, maybe when I watch some more of these here TV show things, I will notice that. Thanks!

II did like it overall, but did anyone else think that it was a little TOO smart and snappy?
Yes, it never had a character stopping to think about when he or she was about to say. Even when Peet couldn't find her office, she kept talking like it was nothing out of the ordinary. I was wondering if the show was trying to say something about TV people becoming like TV characters but maybe there wasn't an intentional message with it.

Yes, it never had a character stopping to think about when he or she was about to say.

That's a hallmark of Sorkin's writing: the characters always have blazing quick wit, and the perfect snappy comeback is but a millisecond away. But it's not limited to his shows, of course. He just does it better than most.

Anyone having trouble with snappy comebacks should never attempt to watch House.

Or Gilmore Girls.

Anyone having trouble with snappy comebacks should never attempt to watch House.
Nice snappy comeback... ;)

Or diff'rent strokes

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather watch a show where all the characters are quick on the comeback, as opposed to watching a show with a bunch of slow witted people like me that think of the perfect reply an hour or so after the fact :D.


ron

Uh...

I agree with Ron.

Or diff'rent strokes
To what are you referring, Deathray? ;)

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather watch a show where all the characters are quick on the comeback, as opposed to watching a show with a bunch of slow witted people like me that think of the perfect reply an hour or so after the fact :D.
Well, an hour (or 42 minutes) of this kind of dialog delivery without natural pauses starts to sound like a bunch of actors roboticly reciting their lines in a read-through to me. A major question about this show is whether or not they're going to show behind-the-scenes television production realistically and I doubt everyone in television is as quick witted as these characters are!

I doubt everyone in television is as quick witted as these characters are!

Yeah, I mean, I would rather watch security camera footage from NBC. 'Cause then I know I'm not being misled about what goes on behind-the-scenes. Screw this scripted stuff! I mean, The Simpsons?! Come on! Nobody looks like that!

Well, an hour (or 42 minutes) of this kind of dialog delivery without natural pauses starts to sound like a bunch of actors roboticly reciting their lines in a read-through to me. A major question about this show is whether or not they're going to show behind-the-scenes television production realistically and I doubt everyone in television is as quick witted as these characters are!

That's why they added the Timothy Busfield character. He gets to stand around going dar...ergh...umm...oh...what? for a couple of minutes each episode so we all have someone we can relate to while these smarties are wizzing one-liners over our heads.

That's why they added the Timothy Busfield character. He gets to stand around going dar...ergh...umm...oh...what? for a couple of minutes each episode so we all have someone we can relate to while these smarties are wizzing one-liners over our heads.

you know, maybe that's why I liked the Timothy Busfield character. He seemed just like me.

Well, it's definitely a signature characteristic of the Sorkin writing style and it can be an acquired taste which doesn't agree with everyone. It can take some getting used to. And it is a show about comedy writers and such so giving them the benefit of the doubt, at least some of them should be a little quicker witted than most. And let's not forget, these are the golden boys come home to save the show too! ;)


ron

I doubt everyone in television is as quick witted as these characters are!

I can GUARANTEE it...

Well, it's definitely a signature characteristic of the Sorkin writing style and it can be an acquired taste which doesn't agree with everyone.
My ex girlfriend was a huge Gilmore Girls fan. That might be why I've lost my taste for anything that sounds like stream-of-conciousness dialog in TV shows. :mad:

Did anyone else think it was odd that Timothy Busfield's character said he left Judd Hirsch on the air for 53 seconds, when in reality Hirsch went on ranting for like two and a half minutes? Maybe Sorkin just couldn't whittle down all of his issues to less than a minute :)

Did anyone else think it was odd that Timothy Busfield's character said he left Judd Hirsch on the air for 53 seconds, when in reality Hirsch went on ranting for like two and a half minutes? Maybe Sorkin just couldn't whittle down all of his issues to less than a minute :)

He meant 53 seconds after the S&P guys told him to take him off.

yeah but what the "critics " like the general public doesn't usually.
We'll see how the show does ;-)

The critics generally love it.

Here are a few of the reviews I've been posting in the Hot Off The Press thread.

The backstage-at-a-sketch-comedy show that isn't "30 Rock" from Aaron Sorkin, the man who brought you "Sports Night" and "The West Wing" and from whose house style this departs not at all. Big sets, fast talk and a fascination with the life of a workplace are again at the heart of things. Bradley Whitford, making the leap from "West Wing," is paired with Matthew Perry as a producer-writer team hired to adrenalize a moribund "SNL"-lookalike. Timothy Busfield, Amanda Peet and D.L. Hughley are here too, making themselves fun to watch.
•By Robert Lloyd Los Angeles Times

Nutshell: New network boss (Amanda Peet) wants to revive venerable but unfunny late-night variety show, hires two troubled ex-writers (Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford) and promises them creative freedom.
Aaron’s take: Talented ensemble (D.L. Hughley, Evan Handler, Sarah Paulson) should feast on whatever comes out of writer-producer Aaron Sorkin’s (“The West Wing”) computer. But America switched off Sorkin’s last TV-show-within-a-show, “Sports Night,” and if he’s serious about “weighing in on the culture wars,” as he promised critics this summer, he could drive a lot of potential viewers over to ESPN or “CSI: Miami.”
Verdict: Appointment TV.
•By Aaron Barnhart Kansas City Star

The most buzzed-about pilot for fall actually, in this writer’s opinion, lives up to the hype. Set behind the scenes at a show very much like “Saturday Night Live,” the latest drama from the pen of Aaron Sorkin is not just a showcase for the scribe’s natural TV-writing gifts, but it provides Matthew Perry with the opportunity to give an absolutely stellar performance. Even if the rest of the season is only 80 percent as good as the pilot, I’ll be glued to this show each week.
• By Maureen Ryan Chicago Tribune


Aaron Sorkin satirizes broadcast television, a milieu he is intimately acquainted with as the creator of "The West Wing" and "SportsNight." This time, late-night TV is the conduit for Sorkin's social commentary. Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry play writing partners brought in to save a ratings-challenged "Saturday Night Live"-type show. Amanda Peet, Timothy Busfield, Steve Weber, D.L. Hughley and Sarah Paulson co-star.
• By Marisa Guthrie The New York Daily News

We finally watched this show last night. Not bad, but pilots are, many times, better than the subsequent shows. (The previews for next week seemed to bear this out). I was a big fan of Sports Night, but West Wing was not my cup of tea at all. It will be interesting to see which of the two this one will be closer to. We decided to give it another week before passing judgement.

Lots of controversy here about the Amanda Peet character. I think she'll be great, personally, if they let her grow into the role. (Would Felicity Huffman have been better? You bet!)

My wife and I were ROF laughing about Mathew Perry's character running around the set and bounding up steps less than a week after L5/S1 back surgery - with or w/o pain killers! :eek:

Brad

My wife and I were ROF laughing about Mathew Perry's character running around the set and bounding up steps less than a week after L5/S1 back surgery - with or w/o pain killers! :eek:
And he quickly sat down on a couch with absolutely no sign of stiffness or pain. Either his character had a morphine drip hidden in his shirt or Mathew Perry also had no idea what L5/S1 surgery was either.

NBC as usual sucks for technical presentation. The picture was just about the worst HD I've ever seen, looking softer than some VHS tapes I own.

The 5.1 audio was also awful. The dialogue was so low I had to crank my volume about 15 db higher than normal, which then nearly shook my room apart when the 3-6 Mafia started performing. I suspect the grainy picture was intentional and "artistic" on the part of Sorkin and Schlamme. Personally I'm with you and can't see how a super-sharp "West Wing" HD clarity could have hurt, but this show is darker and reminds me more of "Sports Night". I'll give it a few more weeks, and I suspect I'll get used to the look and feel.

As far as audio, NBC shows in general have been about 15db below where they should be ever since they started with 5.1 in time for the 2004 Athens Olympics. I've complained to NBC here in LA but to no avail. There's been plenty of discussion about the very low level of audio on all NBC shows, but apparently the NBC engineers believe they have it right.

Personally, I'm with you and feel strongly that it greatly detracts from the audio quality when you have to turn the volume up in order to hear what they're saying. The dynamic range of the audio originally recorded at such a low level really ruins the fidelity when you turn the volume up to what might be considered "normal". Just dreadful, and has been for 2 years now.

I mark NBC shows at around -18db to -22db (on my EQ), while CBS shows are at around 0db to -4db and ABC shows are at around -2db to -6db. HBO and SHO are both at around -2db. Like night and day, NBC being unbelievably lower. And yet they continue to insist they've got it right (Dolby values and all). I don't know what they're listening to, but it doesn't sound good to me and turning the volume up just makes it harsh and intense and loud.

I mark NBC shows at around -18db to -22db (on my EQ), while CBS shows are at around 0db to -4db and ABC shows are at around -2db to -6db. HBO and SHO are both at around -2db. Like night and day, NBC being unbelievably lower. And yet they continue to insist they've got it right (Dolby values and all). I don't know what they're listening to, but it doesn't sound good to me and turning the volume up just makes it harsh and intense and loud.

See I always thought CBS just jacked up their DBs...its by far the loudest DD 5.1 network

We finally watched this show last night. Not bad, but pilots are, many times, better than the subsequent shows.
And sometimes the pilots are worse than the rest of the series. Unless a show is just completely awful (or simply way outside of a type of show I would enjoy), I give everything at least 3 episodes to grab me.

And sometimes the pilots are worse than the rest of the series. Unless a show is just completely awful (or simply way outside of a type of show I would enjoy), I give everything at least 3 episodes to grab me.
Yeah, just look at the pilot of Seinfeld.

I thought that the guy in the beginning was spot on about the FCC. There's almost no point in regulating stuff that goes on the Big 5 networks. It's pointless. If parents have problems with their kids watching certain shows, then turn off the TV or put the V Chip on. Leave the rest of us alone.

If parents have problems with their kids watching certain shows, then turn off the TV or put the V Chip on. Leave the rest of us alone.

Hear hear!

Are Amanda Peet and Mathew Perry a couple, good friends who get each other gigs, or what?? They star in just about everything together it seems.

I'm going to have to Netflix SportsNight because this show and West Wing (in its prime) have a lot going for them. Seeing West Wing on DVD (I never watched it during its run) was like a breath of fresh air when Sorkin was at the top of his game (and hadn't quit the show).

Yes, I do agree with the Herche character's rantings, and yet I do think they over played it a bit and vented a lot of stuff too quickly (and out and out telling us it was like the scene in the film Network, was a bit much). Unless Sorkin was laying out the gist of his show right at the start afraid that it would be canceled before he could make all his points.

Who knows if Sorkin decided to write in Peet's "condition" or if they'll play it like Gillian Anderson on The X-Files who got pregnant early on in the show and they chose to shoot her with heavy coats and in tight close ups as if nothing had happened. Perhaps her character having a baby will be written in and cause her studio head job to be put on the line and others have to go to bat for her. Who knows? In today's network world they may just replace her and not allow time to explore the character.

I think Peet is supposed to be like a wide-eyed idealist (someone like us regular Joe's/Jane's) who thinks they can single handidly change a network (the fictional NBS reminds me of a cross between NBC, where they're getting their jabs at SNL in, and Fox because of the insipid crap they tend to spew out--the joke about the masturbation show waiting in the wings was a good example--, especially Fox) from within and bring quality back to the forefront and remove the stench of the dreck that has become a staple of TV. Perhaps she'll become jaded or just chewed up and spit out... who knows? Only Sorkin does.

It's great seeing some of the cast of The West Wing back. And nice to see Huffman make a guest appearance for her buddy Sorkin. As mentioned here, it's too bad she's wasted on Housewives.

Dan

As far as audio, NBC shows in general have been about 15db below where they should be ever since they started with 5.1 in time for the 2004 Athens Olympics. I've complained to NBC here in LA but to no avail. There's been plenty of discussion about the very low level of audio on all NBC shows, but apparently the NBC engineers believe they have it right.
__________________________________________________________

I mark NBC shows at around -18db to -22db (on my EQ), while CBS shows are at around 0db to -4db and ABC shows are at around -2db to -6db. HBO and SHO are both at around -2db. Like night and day, NBC being unbelievably lower. And yet they continue to insist they've got it right (Dolby values and all).See I always thought CBS just jacked up their DBs...its by far the loudest DD 5.1 networkRight now none of the OTA networks are using AC3 dialnorm the way it's intended. Dialnorm is supposed to attenuate dialog levels to -31db on a program basis. CBS uses a dialnorm value of -31db which has no attenuation. NBC uses -22db which adds 9 db attenuation. Fox uses -25db. Most everyone else uses the default -27db, which matches the dialog levels on most features. It's understandable why CBS might want to sound louder than other networks, but why NBC wants to be lower than everyone else is beyond me. The local NBC stations are often set to -27db (the local NBC O&O is here) and their audio is usually higher and jarring compared to the network. Stations can use their own dialnorm on the network audio instead of the network's metadata to correct that issue. NBC's 5.1/2.0 switching hasn't worked since the Olympics. At the moment disabling decoder dialnorm correction usually improves channel to channel volume differences. It really helps on NBC.

Networks typically don't change the actual volume of the audio sent on the HD network from what's on the delivered tapes.

As for the show I thought is was great. I'm looking forward to it next week. I hope it does well.

I think Peet is supposed to be like a wide-eyed idealist (someone like us regular Joe's/Jane's) who thinks they can single handidly change a network (the fictional NBS reminds me of a cross between NBC, where they're getting their jabs at SNL in, and Fox because of the insipid crap they tend to spew out--the joke about the masturbation show waiting in the wings was a good example--, especially Fox) from within and bring quality back to the forefront and remove the stench of the dreck that has become a staple of TV. Perhaps she'll become jaded or just chewed up and spit out... who knows? Only Sorkin does.

Dan

Interesting take, my impression is the opposite. You don't get to that position in Hollywood - with all her previous positions - by being wide-eyed. You get there by being smart, talented, and cunning. My bet is that she has another side that has quite an edge to it.

I enjoyed the first episode. It reminded me a lot of West Wing -- which for me is a good thing since that is one of my favorite all-time shows. This show has a lot of potential. I loved the way it moved quickly, threw a lot of characters at us and established the premise of the show (as I see it) -- how the three areas will throw their weight around to get more power as the show within the show returns to success. We have the Network vs. The Big Three vs. The Writers/Director.

Great start!

HD quality was same as last week for me. However i don't find it to be absolutely awful, sure its not as clear as CSI Miami or anything, but its still clearly HD.

some of the dialoge went on a bit too long in the second episode, but i'm really liking the behind-the-scenes TV set atmosphere we saw more of tonight.

Like I said in another thread, I would LOVE to work on the fictious show (and the real one too!). Brought back some good memories of some past things I have been involved in.

The first show was a good beginning, but this second showed that they may be able to keep it up. Hope they do; things seem to be looking up (some) for NBC this year.

I guess late night on NBS hasn't gone HD yet judging by those Iky cameras. Interesting how they have 16:9 monitors in the control room.

EDIT: HD studio cameras this week (Thomsons) - I guess the new season of Studio 60 is HD.

awesome episode...I love the mix of humor and drama...some damn fine writing tonight

As a measure of how good this show was, I was watching the clock hoping we'd get to see the opening act of the show. I'd have been ecstatic if I got to see the much talked about "Christian" sketch.

I wish more network execs had the balls Amanda Peete's character had and said screw the protesters, teach them how to change the channel. The most telling line was her comment about just how many of the protesters were viewers of the show, that comment rang so true.

Got to say I'm loving this show.

As a measure of how good this show was, I was watching the clock hoping we'd get to see the opening act of the show. I'd have been ecstatic if I got to see the much talked about "Christian" sketch.


Me too. And the opening act was great! This show is quickly becoming one of my must watch shows.

If only SNL was that good.

hahaha^^^ i was just thinking how sad it was that SNL in real life sucked so bad with no future in sight and Studio 60 is picking up steam. Great jab at Kenan Thompson and his schitk on playing Bill Cosby... that kid should have been fired with the latest cuts Michaels made.

what i think was great is the scene at the end where they all pray together. I think thats the best part of tongiht's show in terms of humanising people who believe in god, but can also take a joke.... like the majority of us. Brilliant setup and execution tonight.

Forget about the drama just do the sketch show! LOL

I wish more network execs had the balls Amanda Peete's character had and said screw the protesters, teach them how to change the channel. The most telling line was her comment about just how many of the protesters were viewers of the show, that comment rang so true.

In reality they all say that but no one has the stones to actually do it. That is why that line worked so well! ;)

Terrific show. (Loved the opening sketch, but them I'm a Gilbert and Sullivan fan anyway). Interesting idea the Peet character had about a penalty fee of 20% for advertisers who pulled their spots, but want to come back if the ratings go up. Any of you insiders know if this has actually been done or just an interesting plot point?

I would like to take back my comment about wanting to see the "Crazy Christians" skit (which they obviously won't show now). The rest of the show was great, but the skit they did show was completely unentertaining. (Maybe if they hadn't been talking about it previously, it would've played better.) Up until that point the show was good... even though the picture quality is still dreadful. (I mean seriously: they need to turn down the noise reduction or whatever is causing all of the blurry trails on moving characters.)

I'd like to keep watching it, but if they continue to give us such terrible video quality I will have to stop watching out of principle.

I would like to take back my comment about wanting to see the "Crazy Christians" skit (which they obviously won't show now). The rest of the show was great, but the skit they did show was completely unentertaining.
I think that's the problem I'm going to have with this show. To be believable, the "show within the show" has to be good. That skit was painfully silly and hardly the brilliant biting cutting edge satire the show wanted us to believe it was. It seemed more like they were trying to tell the audience that one of the executive producers was still snorting lots of coke.

The picture quality was much better, no complaints there. I don't remember any blurry trails but I'll take a look at it again.

The picture quality was much better, no complaints there. I don't remember any blurry trails but I'll take a look at it again. For me (WCAU-DT Philadelphia on Comcast) I think it was a little worse than last week. I rechecked my TV settings (60" SXRD) and confirmed that I have noise reduction turned off on my end. (When I first bought my TV all HD looked like this show until I realized noise reduction was set to maximum.)

Picture quality here in Boston was a lot better than last week, but still sub-par by normal HD standards.

I loved everything else about the episode, but that musical number stank. I think that writing drama and writing sketch comedy are just two vastly different talents, and that it would be for the best if we don't see any more of the show-within-the-show's skits.

hahaha^^^ i was just thinking how sad it was that SNL in real life sucked so bad with no future in sight and Studio 60 is picking up steam. Great jab at Kenan Thompson and his schitk on playing Bill Cosby... that kid should have been fired with the latest cuts Michaels made.

what i think was great is the scene at the end where they all pray together. I think thats the best part of tongiht's show in terms of humanising people who believe in god, but can also take a joke.... like the majority of us. Brilliant setup and execution tonight.

I am afraid that "the scene at the end where they all pray together" was a pathetic joke to make you believe that these were "people who believe in (G)god, but can also take a joke." ................ Looks like it worked. (Did you hear how these 'believers' spoke to the Supreme Being?)

On the positive side, the HD was much better this week. Directors need to get away from that moody lighting that pleases them so much, but irritates the hell out of HD viewers. Sometimes I wish that they all looked like The Office. Actually, I don't want that, but I do like well lighted, sharp pictures.

I thought moody, movie lighting was one of the things that everybody liked about HD broadcasts - as oppossed to the often flat lighting needed for SD shows? :confused:

Here in L.A. the HD picture looked fine.

I mentioned in an earlier post here that I happened to watch the repeat of EP 1 on Bravo in SD last week and the lighting was perfectly fine. I believe the lousy PQ we are seeing is the end result of bad HD transfers, not the "artistic intentions" of the staff. It really didn't look much better (if any) to me this week, but there was no trails or artifacting. Sounds like a local issue (or a set up problem) maybe?

I thought it was good ep overall. The "opening skit" was simply a matter of taste which you will either like or not. I'm not a big broadway show tunes kind of guy by any means, but I did think the dialog of it was pretty good though.

Best scenes/lines for me:

- (after Danny asks Matt what his feelings for Harriet are and he slowly expounds) Danny: Oh god, we're screwed now... Matt: Yup...

- The Busfield character to Danny after he tells him there's a fire right before the show's about to start: .....Naw, just kidding... It's a comedy show man, welcome back!

- All the "sassy" lines for Jordan


ron

I mentioned in an earlier post here that I happened to watch the repeat of EP 1 on Bravo in SD last week and the lighting was perfectly fine. I believe the lousy PQ we are seeing is the end result of bad HD transfers, not the "artistic intentions" of the staff. It really didn't look much better (if any) to me this week, but there was no trails or artifacting. Sounds like a local issue (or a set up problem) maybe?

I have to agree with Ron about the "end result of bad HD transfers." My recording of last night's "Studio 60" didn't record on my HD setup, but the backup recording on my SD setup did record. I watched it and it looked perfectly fine. The same thing applied to last week's pilot episode. I watched it in HD and thought it looked awful, but then I deleted it and my wife was forced to watch it in SD upstairs. I watched it with her and it looked just fine. So there might be something to the bad HD transfer theory.

Shows are not usually transferred separately for HD and SD. As for this show, do we know if it's shot on film?

I did like it overall, but did anyone else think that it was a little TOO smart and snappy? Every character was zipping off their witty comebacks without a moment of thought.

You think this is bad: just watch "Gilmore Girls".

Shows are not usually transferred separately for HD and SD. As for this show, do we know if it's shot on film?

I don't know. Isn't the producer (Wells) a big fan of 16mm film cameras?

I am afraid that "the scene at the end where they all pray together" was a pathetic joke to make you believe that these were "people who believe in (G)god, but can also take a joke."

I don't think so. I think it was based on reality. In theater, it's pretty common for the cast (and sometimes crew) to get together right before the show, hold hands, and say a few inspirational words - religious or otherwise. Since sketch comedians generally come from a live theater background, it's not hard to imagine the cast of a sketch comedy TV show going through the same ritual. That scene seemed more real than any other moment in the drama. I've been in that hand holding circle a hundred times.

The fact that I come from a theater background made me appreciate the Gilbert and Sullivan moment, but I bet the opening sketch fell flat for most viewers. I wish they had showed something more clever and topical. That's what people tune in a sketch comedy show for.

We continue to find out more and more that this really is the autobiography of Sorkin:


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060926/nytu202.html?.v=36

The fact that I come from a theater background made me appreciate the Gilbert and Sullivan moment, but I bet the opening sketch fell flat for most viewers. I wish they had showed something more clever and topical. That's what people tune in a sketch comedy show for.

I don't think you need to have seen any theater to know the opening Modern Major General skit. I think I've seen one theater performance in the last ten years and I probably know the words just from it's inclusion in popular culture.

I thought the second episode was a massive improvement over the first. It moved fast, kept the characters talking and the pressure clock gimmick actually worked to provide some tension to something I didn't care about previously. The fact that they cut down on the in-show content made me less conscious of SNL and more interested in the actual TV show I was watching.

And Matthew Perry - very good. Almost every other thing I've seen him in has been some riff on his Chandler schtick so this is a big step up for him in my opinion.

I'm watching it again and I don't see the PQ problems people are complaining about. Many scenes are dim with no shadow detail but so is my living room right now. I don't see any of the excessive grain or softness that we saw in the pilot that really looked like 16mm and I sure don't see blurriness in any motion. The sets are incredibly detailed even in the low-key lighting.

The bitrate was 15.04 Mbps from my affiliate.

I'm watching it again and I don't see the PQ problems people are complaining about.

I concur. The pilot indeed did look soft and grainy, like 16mm, but episode #2 was much better. Looked like 35mm to me -- not the sharpest I've ever seen, but plenty of small detail and minimal grain.

Really enjoying this show. Smart and entertaining.

I dig what i've seen of it so far. I've only watched the second half (up against "Weeds") of both episodes. but i may watch all of next weeks episode.

I happen to love “Studio 60”. But to proclaim it “NBC’s first hit in a while” is very optimistically jumping the gun. The numbers so far have been, even through the rosiest-colored NBC glasses, less than thrilling. And the second half hour fall-off has been very worrisome.

(From Marc Berman’s Tuesday, September 26, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )

“…At 10 p.m., CBS’ veteran CSI: Miami remained the dominant force with a hefty 12.6/20 in the overnights, 17.42 million viewers and a 5.6/15 among adults 18-49. A distant second was week two of NBC’s highly touted Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which lost some steam with an 8.8/14 in the overnights, 11.21 million viewers and a 4.4/12 among adults 18-49. Comparatively, erosion from week one (Overnights: 10.3/16; Viewers: 13.41 million; A18-49: 5.0/13 on Sept. 18) was nothing unusual at 15 percent in the overnights, 2.2 million viewers and 12 percent among adults 18-49. But another week of losses at 10:30 p.m. could be concerning. The second half of Studio 60 last night dipped by 10 percent in the overnights (9.3/14 to 8.4/13), 1.12 million viewers (11.77 to 10.65) and 11 percent among adults 18-49 (4.7/12 to 4.2/11)…”

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

I happen to love “Studio 60”.

Me too ... so far ... my only gripe is that we still haven't seen the "CrAzY ChRiStiAnS" sketch ... Humm ... Ok for NBS, too hot for NBC? ;) :D

we still haven't seen the "CrAzY ChRiStiAnS" sketch

And we'll never see it. The specific content of the "sketches" is not the point of "Studio 60". The point is the sketch is that it's controversial and everything else that goes along with that. You do realize that no matter what the actual content of the sketch is, it will be a total letdown to everyone if they included it in "Studio 60". The fact that they actually aired it is the point.

And we'll never see it. The specific content of the "sketches" is not the point of "Studio 60". The point is the sketch is that it's controversial and everything else that goes along with that. You do realize that no matter what the actual content of the sketch is, it will be a total letdown to everyone if they included it in "Studio 60". The fact that they actually aired it is the point.

Agreed, the Crazy Christians skit is best left to our own imagination.

Two episodes in, and I'm really liking this show as well. However, I'm not yet sold on the Harriett character. She doesn't seem funny and / or whacky enough to be one of the leads on a sketch comedy type of show.

I don't think so. I think it was based on reality. In theater, it's pretty common for the cast (and sometimes crew) to get together right before the show, hold hands, and say a few inspirational words - religious or otherwise. Since sketch comedians generally come from a live theater background, it's not hard to imagine the cast of a sketch comedy TV show going through the same ritual. That scene seemed more real than any other moment in the drama. I've been in that hand holding circle a hundred times.

The fact that I come from a theater background made me appreciate the Gilbert and Sullivan moment, but I bet the opening sketch fell flat for most viewers. I wish they had showed something more clever and topical. That's what people tune in a sketch comedy show for.

Oh, I think you are quite correct. I, also, think that it was based on reality. I am confused, however, as to why you said you did not agree with what I actually wrote.

Hand holding circles give no indication that people believe in God, but (in this case) can take a joke. I am afraid that the impression was supposed to be given that believers SHOULD be able to take a joke. Typical show business ploy to establish basic moral standing with the viewer. In other words, they may not be what they seem and, by golly, God can take a joke and so should they.

Don't you kind of resent that cornball trick the program tried to play on viewers? I'll bet that scene was very, very important to the program's writers and not only because it is typical showbiz ritual that would give you a sense of reality about the program. I think this will be a "message" program that Hollywood will love.

I do think the show is pretty good so far and I look forward to seeing how it will develop. The HD was much better on the second show and it was not a local problem the first week. I suspect that it came time for camera servicing and they changed filters or the director decided that it was much wiser to attract HD viewers than satisfy personal artistic urges.

This is one of a handful of brilliantly written and produced shows that sort of define great television for me: Deadwood, Rescue Me, Sopranos, Rome, The Shield, and Lost. On the fence: Desperate Housewives, 24, and Brotherhood. If you don't like the dialog on Studio 60, you're either offended by the language or political stance, or you don't appreciate wit.

Here's another vote in favor of Amanda Peet, by the way.

I happen to love “Studio 60”. But to proclaim it “NBC’s first hit in a while” is very optimistically jumping the gun. The numbers so far have been, even through the rosiest-colored NBC glasses, less than thrilling. And the second half hour fall-off has been very worrisome. Why does this not surprise me? I mean, why watch a show that is interesting, (possibly even thought provoking!), which delves into the inner workings of a TV show and the interactions of the players that produce it/star in it, when you can watch a mindless, ridiculously over the top, totally cheesy CSI Miami with lots of guns and cool scenery? Don't get me wrong, I have always really liked the original CSI and NY is not too bad, but I could only stomach Miami for about half the first season. I just hope that NBC hangs with S60 long enough to establish itself. I don't see it ever being any kind of breakaway hit because of it's subject matter and somewhat controversial nature. But there's got to be enough people that like intelligent programming to keep it afloat though right?... Right?......

And Matthew Perry - very good. Almost every other thing I've seen him in has been some riff on his Chandler schtick so this is a big step up for him in my opinion.Sounds like you must have missed his (limited, guest starring) role on The West Wing then?


ron

Who were the people singing and dancing in the opening number supposed to be? (as determined by the lyrics.) Did anyone pick up on that?

The numbers so far have been, even through the rosiest-colored NBC glasses, less than thrilling.

It's a brilliantly written show with amazing characters and great acting. Of course the ratings are bad! ;)

It's a brilliantly written show with amazing characters and great acting. Of course the ratings are bad! ;)

Couldn't agree more -- we are finally getting a lot of new shows now that reality TV is FINALLY dwindling down a bit. I will be so disappointed if this show does not make it.

However, I'm not yet sold on the Harriett character. She doesn't seem funny and / or whacky enough to be one of the leads on a sketch comedy type of show.

Do you think Jerry Seinfeld is funny all of the time? Do you think Robin Williams is rattling off one liner comebacks every waking second? NO. Of the few comics I know, the only time they are "funny" is when they are "on". The rest of the time, they are just normal acting people.

The character Harriet seems to be just like all of the rest. Off camera just a normal person going through life like the rest of us. That appears to be the strength of her character so far. Hard to tell after only two episodes though. Time will tell. But turn on the red light and they are "working" and they HAVE to be funny.

Do you think Jerry Seinfeld is funny all of the time? Do you think Robin Williams is rattling off one liner comebacks every waking second? NO. Of the few comics I know, the only time they are "funny" is when they are "on". The rest of the time, they are just normal acting people.

Appearently, you've never met Jack Black. ;)


And we'll never see it. The specific content of the "sketches" is not the point of "Studio 60". The point is the sketch is that it's controversial and everything else that goes along with that. You do realize that no matter what the actual content of the sketch is, it will be a total letdown to everyone if they included it in "Studio 60". The fact that they actually aired it is the point.

Kinda like how we will never see the glowing pulp in the suitcase that Samuel Jackson and John Travolta were going to pick up in Pulp Fiction.

The point is the sketch is that it's controversial and everything else that goes along with that. .

And my point (expressed in a tongue-in-cheek manner) was that .... awww ... nevermind, if ya didn't get it, ya didn't get it ... :D

This is one of a handful of brilliantly written and produced shows that sort of define great television for me: Deadwood, Rescue Me, Sopranos, Rome, The Shield, and Lost. On the fence: Desperate Housewives, 24, and Brotherhood. If you don't like the dialog on Studio 60, you're either offended by the language or political stance, or you don't appreciate wit.

Here's another vote in favor of Amanda Peet, by the way.


While I agree about Amanda -- whoI think is doing a great job of channeling Jamie Tarses so far -- I must diagree with the final sentence of your first paragraph.

It is possible that people who appreciate quality television -- even if their own favorites differ from yours -- just don't like "Studio 60". They wouldn't necessarily have to be offended by the language or political satire, and they might well appreciate wit. This just might not seem witty to them.

I would disagree with about half the show on your list of favorites, by the way, and I firmly believe I generally enjoy quality TV shows as much as anyone. I suspect you do, too. But quality in any form of entertainment, it seems to me, is in the eye and heart of the viewer.

Because I think something is a quality show (or you do, or many critics do) doesn't mean a whole lot. Quality in almost anything is a very, very subjective matter. And generically dissing folks who don't agree with our definition of what quality is, it seems to me, says more about us about them.

First, my wife and I absolutely love this show. Makes me want to pull out my Sports Night DVDs.

Secondly, what was the phrase on the clock above the numbers? My wife wasn't feeling well, so we watched it in our bedroom, which is an SDTV. Any screen caps anyone?

thanks,

tim

I posted this on the “Hot Off The Press” sticky, but thought people who enjoy the show would find it interesting. This is pretty inside TV stuff…but then it is about “Studio 60”, which is pretty inside, too. Nikki always brings up some good points, but feel to skip to the next item if your hair starts to hurt as you start to read this. I tend to agree with her that scheduling "Studio 60" Mondays at 10PM was not the best idea.

Problem With 'Studio 60' Is Scheduling:
Would Beckman Have Let This Happen?
By Nikki Finke LA Weekly in her deadlinehollywooddaily blog

Don't get me wrong: I like this show. But the primary problem with NBC's expensive but struggling Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip isn't the Aaron Sorkin inside-the-bubble flourishes, or the smarty-pants staccato scripts, or the high-priced/high-profile cast. It's the truly awful scheduling. Granted, ABC last spring threw that monkey wrench into NBC's plans to air Studio 60 on Thursday nights when Grey's Anatomy was moved there (instead of Monday nights). But Monday nights are a lousy time slot for Studio 60 when Sunday night at 10 pm would have been so right. After all, Grey's Anatomy premiered on March 27, 2005, in the same Sunday slot, and that was a winning strategy.

So I don't understand why NBC didn't wait to debut Studio 60 in mid-season after football ended. As it stands now, ESPN's Monday Night Football is eating into its audience. And it can't move to Sunday until it can replace NBC Sunday Night Football. Of course, others might argue that Studio 60's woes go deeper than scheduling, since during premiere week too many Deal Or No Deal viewers turned off the new series within 30 minutes. But it's obvious that Deal and Studio 60 attract very different demos and a game show was the wrong lead-in. Its first week out, Studio 60 wasn't even in the Nielsen Top 20, and its second episode following lead-in Heroes attracted even fewer eyeballs. Now NBC is in a quandary:

If Studio 60 gets moved to Sunday nights or even stays Monday nights and continues airing shows in order, then newcomers will feel lost. And if the network repeats those earlier shows, then existing fans will get bored. It's a dilemma I can't help but think 'King O' The Grids' scheduling guru Preston Beckman would never have let NBC confront.

I've written before in LA Weekly about Beckman. There's no more controversial executive occupying a corporate network job than this guy who brought his "kill and win" style of guerrilla scheduling from NBC to Fox Broadcasting in June 2000 as executive vice president for strategic program planning and research. His so-called genius (only in the lunacy of network television does doing so little often mean so much) was to construct a midseason schedule that spread American Idol and Joe Millionaire over Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to put some heat behind the network's scripted shows. Idol jump-started That '70s Show and Bernie Mac and 24 while Joe helped ignite Boston Public.

The result was that, including the Sunday-night success The Simpsons, Fox solidly won four nights. And that's when NBC's nightmares began, falling eventually to 4th place. Conan O'Brien fans may recognize Beckman's name from his Late Night comedy bits. The Parents Television Council says Beckman singlehandedly dismantled the 8 p.m. "Family Hour" by scheduling adult series like Friends and Mad About You in the sacrosanct time slot. And Just Shoot Me! viewers should recall a former mental patient named Preston Beckman in the 1997 "My Dinner With Woody" episode -- which was executive producer Steven Levitan's way of getting back at the NBC scheduling guru for not just hating the show's pilot but also giving it the Wednesday, 9:30 p.m. time slot, which was then NBC's equivalent of dead air.

But was Bob Wright outFoxed? Beckman was former NBC entertainment president Warren Littlefield's Mini-Me (although some saw it as the other way around, saying Beckman talked Littlefield into that one-time disastrous schedule of 18 sitcoms over four nights). Both red-headed, both bearded, both "not one of those TV guys" (that is, Les Moonves, Ted Harbert and Jon Feltheimer who played golf together at the Riviera), they were an inseparable team. Until the day they talked themselves into thinking they could actually replace then NBC West Coast head Don Ohlmeyer. Littlefield was pushed out not long after the attempted palace coup. Ohlmeyer, too, left.

Replacement Scott Sassa, asked by a friend how long before Beckman would be fired, said, 'Even I have to have my *******s.'" Beckman left NBC when his contract ran out in June 2000. Some say he was pushed before he jumped. But it's sure looking like a mistake to lose him now that, year after year, NBC's primetime fortunes have sunk lower and lower.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/problem-with-studio-60-is-scheduling-2/

I don't know if "Peripheral Vision Man" was a knock on TV Funhouse. Yeah there was a cartoon on the monitors in the background, but when I saw it I thought it was a generic cartoon intro to the bit. Also I thought they only referred to it as a sketch. And that they needed the writers to extend it which would be impossible to do with animation the night of production. Besides, everyone knows Smigel is funny and Peripherial Visionman wasn't supposed to be.

I'm in the 18-49 crowd and I'll be watching from now on.
I thought it was "The Falconer" from SNL. Then again, it could have just been playing at the "stop doing (unfunny sketch) so many times" thing. Like Stuart on MADtv. (1998-2006!)

Shows are not usually transferred separately for HD and SD. As for this show, do we know if it's shot on film?
I can confirm that! I was at the WB lot the day they shot the early pilot (Early April). They were using film cameras. (Not sure what type)

Secondly, what was the phrase on the clock above the numbers?

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." Groucho Marx

While I agree about Amanda -- whoI think is doing a great job of channeling Jamie Tarses so far -- I must diagree with the final sentence of your first paragraph...

For once, not so sure I agree with you fredfa. I think you may have missed his point (or maybe I did). I believe he was referring to the quality of the dialogue in the show and not the overall show quality. Sorkin is known for his rapid fire, witty dialogue and this show had many fine examples of it. As opposed to the simplistic one-liners of many other shows. I do agree you can't generalize "quality" (or much anything else) for viewers - but I think his comment was more a tribute to the quality of the writing than a putdown of those who don't share his views or tastes. Of course, I could be wrong - I was a lookout at Pearl Harbor after all.

As good as this show is, I can't help feeling it is already on its last legs. It's time slot was a mistake, and it's audience demographics are not large to begin with. Hopefully, NBS doesn't pull the plug too soon. I should have known that as soon as I make a series recording of a new show, it's doomed.

I posted this on the “Hot Off The Press” sticky, but thought people who enjoy the show would find it interesting. This is pretty inside TV stuff…but then it is about “Studio 60”, which is pretty inside, too. Nikki always brings up some good points, but feel to skip to the next item if your hair starts to hurt as you start to read this. I tend to agree with her that scheduling "Studio 60" Mondays at 10PM was not the best idea.

Problem With 'Studio 60' Is Scheduling:
Would Beckman Have Let This Happen?
By Nikki Finke LA Weekly
uling-2/[/url]

Very interesting...but then again, how many MNF fans are going to watch Studio 60? Isn't that a totally different demo too?

Very interesting...but then again, how many MNF fans are going to watch Studio 60? Isn't that a totally different demo too?

Not completely, I'm a big football fan but I watch Studio 60 & Weeds on monday nights... Unless the Titans or Raiders are playing... But. as bad as my teams are this season, I might watch the other shows anyway.

Very interesting...but then again, how many MNF fans are going to watch Studio 60? Isn't that a totally different demo too?

FWIW, I watch both - MNF live, and Studio 60 off the DVR.

As good as this show is, I can't help feeling it is already on its last legs. It's time slot was a mistake, and it's audience demographics are not large to begin with. Hopefully, NBS doesn't pull the plug too soon. I should have known that as soon as I make a series recording of a new show, it's doomed.

From what I've read about Studio's budget, I don't know how long NBC is going to give it to find an audience. That's a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there and it ain't cheap to make. I hope they stretch it as long as possible, but I also don't have a very good feeling. There has to be a better day on the schedule.

Relax folks, NBC's not going to pull the plug on this one. They may move it at some point, but rest assured it's staying in the lineup. Too much cash on the line and the Peacock is looking for something to preen about. It's been awhile.

With the buildup this show has had, it would absolutely have to tank hard to get pulled. Besides, if it's demo is like The West Wing's, that's a particularly attractive one to advertisers.

While I agree about Amanda -- whoI think is doing a great job of channeling Jamie Tarses so far -- I must diagree with the final sentence of your first paragraph.

It is possible that people who appreciate quality television -- even if their own favorites differ from yours -- just don't like "Studio 60". They wouldn't necessarily have to be offended by the language or political satire, and they might well appreciate wit. This just might not seem witty to them.

I would disagree with about half the show on your list of favorites, by the way, and I firmly believe I generally enjoy quality TV shows as much as anyone. I suspect you do, too. But quality in any form of entertainment, it seems to me, is in the eye and heart of the viewer.

Because I think something is a quality show (or you do, or many critics do) doesn't mean a whole lot. Quality in almost anything is a very, very subjective matter. And generically dissing folks who don't agree with our definition of what quality is, it seems to me, says more about us about them.

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

There is an occasional program or artist or book or piece of music that I know for a fact is really outstanding and a cut above, with magic in it, and I also know without question that anyone who doesn't appreciate it simply isn't tuned in to the beauty/cleverness/skill/art of it.

I say this not because I have want to feel superior to anybody, but because some of these things seem crystal clear, and I'm frustrated that not enough of the TV audience recognizes excellence. I mourn the loss of shows like Boomtown and a good many others which just weren't appreciated enough by America.

Among programs of the middle quality range, where there is competence in the writing and production, but no genius and no magic, I agree that it's all a matter of taste as to what each of us likes. And certainly if someone is offended by some aspect of a show, nobody expects him or her to sing its praises.

Certainly you are a thoughtful follower of TV programming. Not to put you on the spot, but I'd appreciate it if you tell me which of the programs I listed are favorites of yours, and which are not, and for the ones you don't agree with, why.

Relax folks, NBC's not going to pull the plug on this one. They may move it at some point, but rest assured it's staying in the lineup. Too much cash on the line and the Peacock is looking for something to preen about. It's been awhile.

With the buildup this show has had, it would absolutely have to tank hard to get pulled. Besides, if it's demo is like The West Wing's, that's a particularly attractive one to advertisers.

Hope your right -- but the expense of producing each West Wing episode was one of the resons for the show's demise even with the nice demographic. I will be surprised if this show makes it with the tough competition it is up against. If it can't win a time-slot for NBC it won't be worth the cost for the quality actors.

MNF is a must for me as is Studio 60. MNF is a must live and I can live with Studio 60 on my HDDVR, just hope they can.

Hope your right -- but the expense of producing each West Wing episode was one of the resons for the show's demise even with the nice demographic. I will be surprised if this show makes it with the tough competition it is up against. If it can't win a time-slot for NBC it won't be worth the cost for the quality actors.

If Studio 60 can manage a run like TWW, I'd be very happy. As much as I love the TWW and would have loved to see it return, it had done what it set out to do and I'm happy with the series as a whole.

Arrested Development, on the other hand...

well, let's not talk about that.

If Studio 60 can manage a run like TWW, I'd be very happy. As much as I love the TWW and would have loved to see it return, it had done what it set out to do and I'm happy with the series as a whole.

Arrested Development, on the other hand...

well, let's not talk about that.

The difference is, TWW had boffo ratings right out of the gate and kept those lofty numbers for about four seasons, so when the numbers began to slide NBC could live with the bottom line for a few more seasons. With Studio limping from the start, it's going to be in a position where it'll be scrambling to attract more viewers and with what it costs to produce, will NBC want to live with that bottom line for long? I think they'll do what they can to pull in the viewers for at least this season, but if the numbers keep sliding all the way through May, what then?

The only hope I have is what NBC has done with Scrubs. For whatever reason, people don't watch Scrubs - even though I find it to be the funniest show on TV and that includes Earl and The Office. The ratings are dismal, but they keep bringing it back year after year. I imagine it costs a lot less to produce than Studio, but the precedent has been set, so maybe NBC does it again with Studio.

The only hope I have is what NBC has done with Scrubs. For whatever reason, people don't watch Scrubs - even though I find it to be the funniest show on TV and that includes Earl and The Office. The ratings are dismal, but they keep bringing it back year after year. I imagine it costs a lot less to produce than Studio, but the precedent has been set, so maybe NBC does it again with Studio.

Like someone else said in this thread...its a well written, witty, funny show...of course it doesn't get good ratings. I love Scrubs...I think its probably the best 30 minute show on TV besides Entourage (which really should be a freaking hour).

As for Studio 60...I seriously do hope it makes it...I think its a great show and deserves to be seen...

From HD magazine:

Director of Photography for Stuidio 60 on the Sunset Strip Thomas Del Ruth quotes:
We shot the pilot in Super 16 format."
film Kodak Vision2 500T 7218 color negative...
There is no apparent grain when the Super 16 negative is transferred to HD for airing."
We framed shots in 16:9 [aspect ratio] without protecting for 1.33:1 because we didn't want to make any compromises."

The cinematographer receives dailies every night and frequently visits the telecine suite during his lunch hour to put final touches on the look...

The series is being produced on 35mm film. (minus the pilot)

------
So fellow AVSers you heard it directly from the Director of Photography about the framing and grain of the pilot. Of course the rest of the season will show considerable less grain as 35mm's negative image size is 4X that of Super16 film.

Remember it was only the final season of "The West Wing" the producers switched from Super35mm to Super16mm so you may remember the INCREASE in grain on that show.


And how cool that another big show is totally framing for 16:9 and letterboxing the standard definition feed and not caring about 4:3 center cut for foreign markets. Yes, finally another show on the widescreen-only framing bandwagon....

-kspaz

From HD magazine:

Director of Photography for Stuidio 60 on the Sunset Strip Thomas Del Ruth quotes:
We shot the pilot in Super 16 format."
film Kodak Vision2 500T 7218 color negative...
There is no apparent grain when the Super 16 negative is transferred to HD for airing."
We framed shots in 16:9 [aspect ratio] without protecting for 1.33:1 because we didn't want to make any compromises."

The cinematographer receives dailies every night and frequently visits the telecine suite during his lunch hour to put final touches on the look...

The series is being produced on 35mm film. (minus the pilot)

------
So fellow AVSers you heard it directly from the Director of Photography about the framing and grain of the pilot. Of course the rest of the season will show considerable less grain as 35mm's negative image size is 4X that of Super16 film.

Remember it was only the final season of "The West Wing" the producers switched from Super35mm to Super16mm so you may remember the INCREASE in grain on that show.


And how cool that another big show is totally framing for 16:9 and letterboxing the standard definition feed and not caring about 4:3 center cut for foreign markets. Yes, finally another show on the widescreen-only framing bandwagon....

-kspaz

Sorry, but I'm not sure that I am understanding and I want to understand.

Presumably, they were trying to produce the best looking pilot episode that was possible. In that case, why did they not use Super35mm? What am I missing? Is the Director of Photography saying that they used an inferior process for the pilot, but the rest of the season will look good? I'm confused. Please interpret.

Who were the people singing and dancing in the opening number supposed to be? (as determined by the lyrics.) Did anyone pick up on that?

No one responded to the above, so I am quoting myself.

Was the opening song and dance number the Crazy Christians sketch or still another Crazy Christians routine? Some people here seemed disappointed to think that they wouldn't see the Crazy Christians sketch. Maybe we did.

Each week they could have a variation. Crazy Jews; Crazy Islamists; etc. They could go on and on until they cover everyone. Something tells me, however, that it will end with Crazy Christians. Hollywood is fairly predictable.

We never saw the sketch. The censors probably pulled it. ;)

The problem is that they really built up how funny the sketch was - and if they actually showed it to us, it'd have to be extremely funny for these characters to maintain any credibility with the viewers.

Sorry, but I'm not sure that I am understanding and I want to understand.

Presumably, they were trying to produce the best looking pilot episode that was possible. In that case, why did they not use Super35mm? What am I missing? Is the Director of Photography saying that they used an inferior process for the pilot, but the rest of the season will look good? I'm confused. Please interpret.


I knew I should have included this in my post. I quote from the article from the DP Thomas Del Ruth,

"We shot the pilot in Super 16 format", he says, "It was purely an economic decision. The pilot was expensive, primarily because of the sets. I approached it just like we were shooting 35mm film.


The reason I didn't include that was since the pilot was shot on Super16 and the show is currently produced on 35mm was that fellow AVSers would assume it was because of economic reasons. This was the same reason they shot the last season of "The West Wing" on Super16 as the principle actors asked for raises the producers felt they had to cut some money somewhere...
Also when he says produced on 35mm we should all assume Super35 as that is what they shot the first 4 seasons of The West Wing on. 4-perf Super35.
Now they _MAY_ be shooting in 3-perf Super35 to save approximately 25% film negative costs. I'm sure a future issue of American Cinematographer will cover this TV series and have all the details.

If Monday at 10PM isn't cutting it for 'Studio 60' what other night would you schedule it in? Keep in mind 'MNF' only runs until early January, so after that the show could catch a second wind and increase its numbers in time for the all-important February and May sweeps. It looks like 'Kidnapped' might not last on Wednesdays. Should NBC move 'Studio 60' to 10PM Wednesdays? I'd personally keep it on Mondays at least until mid-season. 'Law & Order' is more likely to return to its old 10PM Wednesday time slot (even though its doing great on Fridays) than 'Studio 60' moving there, but what do I know. :o

another sharp episode tonight. i didn't like what they did with the part when they showed all the clips of the bits though, the music in the background took away from it.

and does the cast and crew of entire shows just wait around at a big party after every episode just to hear their ratings and then dance around about them?

another sharp episode tonight. i didn't like what they did with the part when they showed all the clips of the bits though, the music in the background took away from it.


Huh? The show airs on Monday nights.

Here in Canada we actually get the show on Sunday nights on CTV and again Monday on NBC. I am really enjoying this series, and I agree with the above comment about not liking the part where they showed all the clips from the sketches.

OK, well, it doesn't air until Mon nights here in the US. So, out of common courtesy, please use spoiler tags if you're going to talk about plot points.

oh sorry, well its been aired in continent wide now. funny how Canadians see the show before Americans, and its an American show.

I think that is very unusual. I've seen US networks worry about Canada seeing 5 seconds before the US audience.

Yeah. That's very interesting. You guys saw Grey's Anatomy episode 2 (of this season) before seeing episode 1 (of this season) and now you get to see Studio 60 a day ahead of us? AND you get free health care? That's IT! I'm moving to Canada!!! :D

PS. Is it cold there in the winter? :p

oh sorry, well its been aired in continent wide now. funny how Canadians see the show before Americans, and its an American show.

I think the producers felt the Canadians needed an extra 24 hours to get the jokes. :D

Actually truth be told, SNL would likely be a heck of a lot more funny if they transitioned to 100% Canadian cast/writers.

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

Yeah, this is a pretty good show, but what is with this hangup on religion and Bush? These things are sprinkled all through the dialogue. I guess they're just trying to show us the way it really is in showbiz.

what is with this hangup on religion and Bush?

Yeah, I mean, no one cares about religion. And who is this Bush fellow, exactly?

Wow, some of you should really watch CSI instead.

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
NBC's 'Studio 60' in a ratings stumble
Much-praised drama loses 20 percent of 18-49s
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Oct.3, 2006

“Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” has been universally praised for its smart writing, great acting and biting satire. But it’s possible that the show is a bit too inside Hollywood for most viewers.

After strong initial sampling, the show has dipped a good deal over the last two outings. Last night’s third episode averaged a 3.5 adults 18-49 rating, according to Nielsen overnights, down 20 percent from last week’s 4.4 and 30 percent from a 5.0 for the Sept. 18 debut.

Despite strong retention for “Heroes” after last week’s debut, NBC fell behind CBS on Monday night for the first time this season, averaging a 4.2 rating and 11 share to the latter’s 4.6/11.

At 10 p.m., “Studio 60” lost 34 percent of lead-in “Heroes’” 5.3 average. It finished third in the timeslot behind CBS’s “CSI: Miami” and ABC’s “The Bachelor” premiere.

That’s hardly encouraging for the Aaron Sorkin-penned drama, which some media people praised as the best pilot they’d ever seen over the summer. Indeed, the quality of the show doesn’t seem to be the problem; nearly everyone agrees that all the parts are there.

It may simply be the subject matter. People outside of Hollywood don’t care about the entertainment business nearly as much as those inside it do, and shows about the industry don’t have a great track record. HBO’s “The Comeback” lasted just one season, and even “Entourage,” its much-buzzed-about show about a young actor, isn’t a top viewer draw.

The good news for NBC is that the show may now have found its core audience and could stop dipping. It fell just 6 percent from its first half hour to its second after double-digit declines in its first weeks. “Studio 60” has also performed quite well among the affluent demos who helped make Sorkin’s “West Wing” a hit.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_7687.asp

:(

I'd rather it be good than popular.

Yeah, I mean, no one cares about religion. And who is this Bush fellow, exactly?

Wow, some of you should really watch CSI instead.

CSI is the same thing every week. That's what I'm hoping Studio 60 doesn't turn into.

I don't care what the group is, if they can't be creative enough to avoid hammering in the same exact message every week - this show will die a slow death from boredom.

Agreed, gruven42 -- except that it needs to be popular enough to stay on the air.

(From Marc Berman’s Tuesday, October 3, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )

.. Week three of NBC’s…Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip took another significant hit, dipping to a 7.2/11 in the overnights, 9.05 million viewers and a 3.5/ 9 among adults 18-49. Retention for Studio 60 out of Heroes was just 77 percent in the overnights, 72 percent in total viewers and 66 percent among adults 18-49. Take a look at Studio 60’s three-week track:

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip – Mon. 10 p.m.
9/18/06 - Overnights: 10.3/16; Viewers: 13.41 million; A18-49: 5.0/13
9/25/06 - Overnights: 8.7/14; Viewers: 10.83 million; A18-49: 4.2/11
10/02/06 – Overnights: 7.2/11; Viewers: 9.05 million; A18-49: 3.5/ 9

And, to make matters worse, erosion in the second half of Studio 60 continued, with a loss of 8 percent in the overnights (7.5/11 to 6.9/11), 650,000 viewers (9.38 to 8.73 million) and 5 percent among adults 18-49 (3.6/ 9 to 3.4/ 9). Both CSI: Miami and The Bachelor: Rome did not lose steam at 10:30 p.m….”

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

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

One of the nation's most-respected critics is having some doubts about "Studio 60". That is never a good sign.

The New Season
''Studio 60'' Again
By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal TV blog

Here's where I get a little crazed: Last night, it was about 11 p.m. when the bride and I got back from the screening of ''The Departed,'' and I just couldn't relax. Too much Diet Coke at the movie -- it was in one of those cups you could float a paper sailboat across -- and I was just wired from watching and thinking about the movie. So, after a feeble attempt at sleeping, I settled down with my recording of the third episode of ''Studio 60.''

Which didn't help me sleep either.

I fear the wheels are falling off the bus with this one. The biggest reason is that Aaron Sorkin keeps insisting on showing us comedy sketches within the show and it's now absolutely clear that Sorkin can't write sketch comedy. (Maybe he should send a distress call to Tina Fey.) We're supposed to believe that something remarkable is happening with the show, but we have no on-camera evidence of that -- and at some point viewers are going to catch on.

It's my secret hope that the dour, show-ending expression on the face of Matthew Perry -- one of the two best things in last night's show -- means that his character at least knows that the show isn't very good. That it's not just that the ratings will decline, or that the media scrutiny will get more intense. He knows as well that the laughs are artificially generated and will dry up soon enough. But nothing other than Perry's face (and our own view of the sketches) makes that point, so I may be giving it too much credit.

More gripes: An 8-year-old DUI for a network entertainment division president isn't going to generate much of a frenzy -- and a book about her would lie dead on the shelves. The focus-group research was oversimplified. The speech about a DUI being worse than a coke problem was absurdly self-righteous.

Second best thing in the episode (after Perry's performance): The Tina Fey-Alec Baldwin promo for ''30 Rock.'' Now, THAT's comedy.

Maybe this is the late hour and the caffeine talking -- although, based on some conversations with other viewers this morning, I doubt it. Your thoughts?

http://blogs.ohio.com/beacon_tv/

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

I watched OTA HD in the Bay Area. Every few minutes the screen would black out. Was this a local issue?

Must have been. I watched from KCRA-DT in Sacramento, and it was clean.

Second best thing in the episode (after Perry's performance): The Tina Fey-Alec Baldwin promo for ''30 Rock.'' Now, THAT's comedy.
I don't agree with all his points, but I definitely agree with this one. That promo was great! Sarah Paulson does a pretty darn good Holly Hunter too.


ron

I really hate to invest my time on a new show that won't make it - heaven knows I've done it enough times. With sinking ratings the last 2 weeks, this one is probably coming off my series recording list.

I watched OTA HD in the Bay Area. Every few minutes the screen would black out. This happened a little on Heroes too but got really bad with Studio 60. Was this a local issue? After about 10:30 pm I got bad freezes and pixelation (the weather must have been too clear!!) and eventually had to watch in SD.
There's something wrong with KNTV's encoder, not only black screens and pixelation, but a soft mushy looking image whenever there is motion. Waiting to hear from Richard Swank of KNTV in the Yahoo group to see what the deal is because there is definitely something screwed up.

Sinking, sinking, sinking....almost gone.

Two reasons for the Christian Right/Bush bashing: 1. It's topically current (as the show is supposed to be) and... 2. It's written by Aaron Sorkin, who, like David Kelley, can't help but preach his personal agenda every chance he gets. Taken together, it's a slam dunk.

Again, this show is not going anywhere. Too much money and prestige invested, and an attractive demographic of high-income people who don't mind using their brains for something besides a propaganda vessel. They'll try moving it before they cancel it, but my guess is that won't be necessary. They'll can 'Kidnapped' first; they won't lose them both.

The "propaganda vessel" part isn't as much the problem. It's using the exact same propaganda every week. The only people that will continue to tune in are the people who like to hear their opinion thrown back at them repeatedly beacause they have difficulty thinking for themselves. This isn't radio. ;)

They'll try moving it before they cancel it, but my guess is that won't be necessary. They'll can 'Kidnapped' first; they won't lose them both.
I agree with archiguy on this one. This show is here to stay. If Monday night football is to hard on it, they'll change nights.

I also like Kidnapped. I hope it doesn't get cancelled. It's going to be a tough one on Wed. nights again Lost though. I'm running out of DVR tuners.

The "propaganda vessel" part isn't as much the problem. It's using the exact same propaganda every week. The only people that will continue to tune in are the people who like to hear their opinion thrown back at them repeatedly beacause they have difficulty thinking for themselves. This isn't radio. ;)

Remember that the first ep of The West Wing was a bit harsh on the evangelicals as well, but that certainly didn't remain the focus of the show; neither will this. Granted, it's one of Sorkin's hot buttons, but he has a lot of them. There will be other issues examined, other oxes gored. It will remain a show for thinking people and, hopefully, there are enough of them to ensure its survival. There do seem to be more of 'em around these days. ;)

I also like Kidnapped. I hope it doesn't get cancelled. It's going to be a tough one on Wed. nights again Lost though. I'm running out of DVR tuners.

I believe 'Kidnapped' is slotted against 'The Nine' at 10:00, safely away from the 'Lost' juggernaut. But that probably won't save it, as 'The Nine' is, along with 'Studio 60', the season's most favorably reviewed show and is expected to do well. It also has the 'Lost' lead-in which apparently matters in those non-DVR homes, of which I hear there are still a few around.

I really hate to invest my time on a new show that won't make it - heaven knows I've done it enough times. With sinking ratings the last 2 weeks, this one is probably coming off my series recording list.
It's your right, of course, but there aren't that many shows worth watching at any one time, so to stop watching a brilliantly written and produced program because it may be cancelled seems like an odd decision. Unless you don't recognize its quality.

One of the nation's most-respected critics is having some doubts about "Studio 60". That is never a good sign.

...

The biggest reason is that Aaron Sorkin keeps insisting on showing us comedy sketches within the show and it's now absolutely clear that Sorkin can't write sketch comedy. (Maybe he should send a distress call to Tina Fey.) We're supposed to believe that something remarkable is happening with the show, but we have no on-camera evidence of that -- and at some point viewers are going to catch on.

He's dead-on right about this. I love the show as a whole, but Sorkin needs to either hire real comedians to write the comedy skits or stop showing them altogether. The musical in the first episode was pretty lame, but "Science Schmience" was just plain horribly unfunny, and the rest of the sketches in the montage were pretty awful as well. Material like that would certainly never signal a rebirth for their show.

The "propaganda vessel" part isn't as much the problem. It's using the exact same propaganda every week. The only people that will continue to tune in are the people who like to hear their opinion thrown back at them repeatedly beacause they have difficulty thinking for themselves. This isn't radio. ;)
Remember that the one of the female leads is a born-again Christian, and they aren't portraying her in a cartoonish way. And there's a lot of crazy stuff, worthy of ridicule, that certain segments of the Christian community are doing in our country - you'd agree, right? By the way, the religion skit made fun of orthodox Jews, Scientology, and Islam as well.

The show wants to present itself as going up against and making fun of a self-righteous, massively entrenched power that believes itself to be the moral compass of the country and has the strength to try and squash anybody that ridicules it. Hard to think of another entity like that unless it's Bush and the Republican leadership, who will be getting equal time, I suspect. So I don't think there's a big list of "propaganda" targets to divide the comedy among. Can you think of any?

Still, I agree that the anti-Christian message doesn't have the legs to carry the show for a full season and beyond.

It's your right, of course, but there aren't that many shows worth watching at any one time, so to stop watching a brilliantly written and produced program because it may be cancelled seems like an odd decision. Unless you don't recognize its quality.
This was my post after watching the first episode. My opinion hasn't changed although I was probably a little harsh on Amanda Peet. If anything, I may have been overly optimistic that this show would last an entire season.

I already record more shows than I have time to watch (esp. during football season). It's just not worth it to me to become interested in a show that's doomed from the start. This show is history.
Watched it off the DVR tonight. I thought it was smart, well-written, and had good acting (except Amanda Peet). I'll be amazed if it lasts beyond this season.

My sense is that it's too much of an insider show to play in Peoria. Maybe it will attract the high income West Wing crowd, but I think the politics of West Wing had broader appeal than the politics of network broadcasting in this show.