# Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip



## John Crichton (Sep 22, 2006)

As a huge fan of Sports Night and then The West Wing I was really looking forward to Aaron Sorkin's next show.  A "behind the scenes" view of an SNL analog sounded awesome.  Just watched the pilot and it has all the classic Sorkin dialogue and flawed characters.  In short, it's awesome.

I never thought Matthew Perry could play anyone but Matthew Perry/Chandler from Friends until I saw him on West Wing.  And now he actually has a character to sink his teeth into.  Liked the other two shows I mentioned?  Check this one out.  It's got it where it counts and the previews for next week look even better than this week's stuff.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 22, 2006)

I really liked it, too. The dialogue wasn't quite as snappy as standard Sorkin, but I actually think that might be a good thing.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Sep 22, 2006)

I wasn't sure about this show, but my wife really wanted to watch it. I was suprised I really enjoyed the show and will be tuning in next week.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 22, 2006)

I saw it. I never liked West Wing and this did seem really similar in feel. Of course the West Wing recieved much aclaim and lasted a long time. I will probably watch one more episode but in all likelyhood I will leave the show to others who like that sort of thing.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 22, 2006)

I loved Sports Night.  Hated West Wing for the content, although the writing was pretty good.  I enjoyed the first episode of Studio 60 to come back for more.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2006)

This was sharp and rather smart, being a big fan of the other two shows I knew I would like this.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 22, 2006)

I was a fan of Sports Night (never got into TWW) and Matthew Perry was always the best part of Friends (blarg) so I figured I would like it, and I did.  Definitely tuning in.


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 25, 2006)

It usually takes a couple episodes for me to get interested in a new show, but this one grabbed me from the start.  Definitely going into my Tivo rotation.


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 25, 2006)

I've been looking forward to this one for a while.  The first ep was pretty good but I'm expecting great things with the cast and crew.  From TWW it has both Soorkin and Thomas Schlamme (sp?), as well as at least two actors.


----------



## Aesthetic Monk (Sep 25, 2006)

Saw (most of) the pilot last night by accident. (Show's rebroadcast on Bravo.)

The thing that surprised me, more than Perry, was Weber. Where did Weber get gravitas? Most unexpected.

Anyway, I gave up on West Wing sometime before Sorkin's departure. It was ... clever, but too writerly and speechified for me. As the subject matter in S60 is lighter, the speeches should be a bit less frequent. I'll tune in tonight, anyway.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 25, 2006)

Aesthetic Monk said:
			
		

> The thing that surprised me, more than Perry, was Weber. Where did Weber get gravitas? Most unexpected.




I gotta agree, Weber was playing a real prick; an unexpected departure for sure. 

Overall, I enjoyed the first episode but seeing as how it was really a setup show it will be interesting to see how things develop now that Perry and Whitford are running Studio 60.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 25, 2006)

Aesthetic Monk said:
			
		

> As the subject matter in S60 is lighter, the speeches should be a bit less frequent. I'll tune in tonight, anyway.




Sure didn't seem that way to me in the pilot. Religion, censorship and drugs were major issues and nothing felt light at all to me. Maybe things will change but all those issues seemed like long term recurring things.


----------



## eris404 (Sep 25, 2006)

Although I liked the pilot overall, I have to say that it seems a lot like Sorkin's soapbox. I have a feeling he's wanted to deliver that "53 seconds" speech for several years now...


----------



## Crothian (May 25, 2007)

After a bit of a rough patch and the show just not being on...it's back tonight!!


----------



## Silver Moon (May 25, 2007)

From what I hear they are just burning off  two previously filmed episodes this week and next week.  It has definitely not been renewed for another season.


----------



## Crothian (May 25, 2007)

It's not renewed by the ads say they have 6 episodes to air.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 25, 2007)

It's bizarre to me, all the negative editorial press about it. I quite enjoy the show and looked forward to it every week.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 25, 2007)

At least we get all the last episodes, which is a kinder fate than most cancelled shows get. What's funny is that the network's two attempts to replace it on Monday night fared even worse.


----------



## Sigdel (May 25, 2007)

They just advertised 6 new episodes. Since it was pulled I've been keeping an eye on the NBC messege boards and NBC never canceled it but put it in limbo. As much as I would like S60 to have a good run of several seasons I cant help but feel that if it can't do well enough following NBC top rated show then their is no hope. It's like all the shows Comedy Central plugs in after Southpark. If they still suck, they scrap em.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 25, 2007)

Sigdel said:
			
		

> They just advertised 6 new episodes. Since it was pulled I've been keeping an eye on the NBC messege boards and NBC never canceled it but put it in limbo. As much as I would like S60 to have a good run of several seasons I cant help but feel that if it can't do well enough following NBC top rated show then their is no hope. It's like all the shows Comedy Central plugs in after Southpark. If they still suck, they scrap em.



If they haven't officially canceled _Studio 60_ then they're putting it on the reserve list (i.e., midseason replacement).


----------



## takyris (May 25, 2007)

It's officially canceled. Once the sets have been demolished (and the sets have, in fact, been demolished), you don't come back.

I'll happily watch the last few. Shame it didn't catch on with a wider audience.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 25, 2007)

I have enjoyed what I have seen of this show.  I'll try to catch the remaining episodes.  Too bad it is going away.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (May 25, 2007)

I thought the plagiarism episode had a perfect ending.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 25, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> It's bizarre to me, all the negative editorial press about it. I quite enjoy the show and looked forward to it every week.




Me too, I really enjoyed the show and had my Monday nights set up for Heroes and Studio 60


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 25, 2007)

I enjoyed it for the most part. Last nights episode was a little too much filler or me. I know they wern't planning on it being canceled when they shot it, but now with only 6 episodes left I was disapointed that this was one of the last 6..


----------



## Crothian (May 25, 2007)

It wasn't filler it was a funny episode.  The season long plots on this show are not all that important.


----------



## Alzrius (May 25, 2007)

The show seemed to be doomed by unreasonable expectations almost from the beginning. People kept drawing comparisons between it and The West Wing, which practically set it up to fail, since this show couldn't hope to follow in the same thematic footsteps. The inner workings of Hollywood don't present the same challenges as being President of the United States does, and doesn't present issues that concern everyone the way a political show does. Likewise, the focus on a more character-driven elements (especially by putting a couple with a turbulent romance up front) shocked people who were expecting it to be as plot-driven as its predecessor.

Studio 60 is a good show, but like a rookie comedian trying to perform a follow-up act after a big name, it just had the deck stacked against it.


----------



## hafrogman (May 25, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It wasn't filler it was a funny episode.  The season long plots on this show are not all that important.



I think it was fairly funny filler, but still filler in my opinion.  The plot doesn't have to always be there. . . but three of our main characters were totally absent.  No Matt, no Danny, no Jordan.  Not even a mention of Jordan.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 25, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> It's bizarre to me, all the negative editorial press about it. I quite enjoy the show and looked forward to it every week.



There was negative editorial press? Everything I read from critics and entertainment 'reporters' was very positive... (It was just not enough of the _audience_ that tuned in.)


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 25, 2007)

hafrogman said:
			
		

> I think it was fairly funny filler, but still filler in my opinion.  The plot doesn't have to always be there. . . but three of our main characters were totally absent.  No Matt, no Danny, no Jordan.  Not even a mention of Jordan.




That was kind of where I was trying to go. Without the main characters it seems like filler to me.


----------



## Crothian (May 25, 2007)

To me it seemed like a good episode for focusing on the cast and crew and the higher ups.  I liked that.  It was nice to see others get a little more screen time.


----------



## hafrogman (May 25, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> There was negative editorial press? Everything I read from critics and entertainment 'reporters' was very positive... (It was just not enough of the _audience_ that tuned in.)



Entertainment Weekly listed it as "Worst Show of 2006"
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20006523,00.html
A lot of people seemed to turn on it after it was seen that the ratings weren't going to be what was expected.  And as Alzrius said, a lot of the criticism was simply that it wasn't as good as it had been hyped up to be.

*sigh*


----------



## Ranger REG (May 26, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> It's officially canceled. Once the sets have been demolished (and the sets have, in fact, been demolished), you don't come back.
> 
> I'll happily watch the last few. Shame it didn't catch on with a wider audience.



I thought it was going to be better than _30 Rock._

Heh. Just recalling that promo where Alec Baldwin is glad to be working for Aaron Sorkin, only to find out he's on the wrong show.


----------



## Felon (May 26, 2007)

Studio 60 was a lame show that deeply deserved cancellation. It was not sharp. It was not smart. It preened itself on sharp smartness that it didn't actually deliver. People being all cocky and strident and making banter that largely consists of trying to screw up each other's witty metaphors is not all that "sharp". Being snobbish and condescending towards mainstream televeision (which Jordan refers to as "illiterate programming") does not inherently qualify as "smart".

 I would agree with Alzrius that it was unfair for critics to compare it unfavorably to the West Wing, except that the show set itself up for that by pretending that every week's show was turning into the next Cuban Missile Crisis. You've got a chairman and a persident of a network just hanging around this show having endless debates about content that really doesn't even have much impact simply because most folks go to bed before it comes on.

In the first episode, Judd Hirsch gets up and delivers his little networksesque shpiel that's supposed to decry the dumbing-down of what was once a showcase for brilliant satire. Now, this is supposedly a reference to Saturday Night Live losing its teeth, but in actuality it's romanticizing some era of SNL that never was. I remember Chevy Chase taking pratfalls over ottomans as Gerald Ford, for Pete's sake. 

Then there's an episode where they have a crisis over the sudden cancellation of a sketch about an inept bank robber taking hostages, all because some guy somewhere killed his family. Now, there's almost always someone somewhere being held hostage, so what is the message here? It's always in poor taste to have a sketch ever? Sorry, they really push the premise of Stuido 60's relevance too hard.

And the real nail in the coffin? The show-within-the-show was a flop. Sorkin just could not figure out how sketch comedy works. Remember the big, brilliant opening sketch they do on the second episode to demonstrate the edgy new direction? And it was what? The cast singing to the tune of the "Modern Major General" song from the Priates of Penzance. Oh yeah, Gilbert & Sullivan references are THE cutting edge. So many folks can relate. Most of the sketches we got to see (like the fake news and Jesus Christs as the head of Standards & Practices) was just trying to take Sorkin's talent for snide banter and package it as sketch comedy, and that just doesn't cut it.

What a disappointment. Everything it was trying to accomplish needed to be executed with a much higher degree of subtlety. The best I could say about the show is that it had a few cute chicks. 

Of course, the real irony is that in the face of all its smug condescension, it wound up getting replaced by "The Real Wedding Crashers".


----------



## Ranger REG (May 26, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Of course, the real irony is that in the face of all its smug condescension, it wound up getting replaced by "The Real Wedding Crashers".



And how is _The Real Wedding Crashers_ any better than _Studio 60_?


----------



## Crothian (May 26, 2007)

I disagree with Felon.  I think the show worked.  I also think people read to much into what they were trying to do.  some people do think today's TV is being dumbed down and this show was just coming from that point of view.


----------



## takyris (May 26, 2007)

My feelings are mixed. Like I said, I'll happily watch it, but seeing it after the long hiatus tonight, I was struck by both how much I enjoyed watching Cal try to keep the wheels moving and all the actors segued from character-arc to show-politics seamlessly (which I loved), and Harriet holding all the other actors hostage to make them talk with her about her relationship with Matt. THUD. Give me the bomb-sniffing dog any day.

I liked the banter, and I liked the politicking, and I wish the show-within-the-show had been better written, and that the Matt & Harriet thing hadn't killed the fun. I thought that the show was better when it tried to be funny with occasional flashes of surprising depth instead of deep and powerful with occasional flashes of humor.


----------



## Felon (May 26, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And how is _The Real Wedding Crashers_ any better than _Studio 60_?



That was sort of the point, mate. TRWC is the sort of lowest-common-denominator nonsense that Jordan wouldn't have touched with a ten foot pole.


----------



## Felon (May 26, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I disagree with Felon.  I think the show worked.  I also think people read to much into what they were trying to do.  some people do think today's TV is being dumbed down and this show was just coming from that point of view.



Studio 60's position wasn't just that mainstream American TV is dumbed-down, but that mainstream Americans are dumber than the people behind Stuido 60. Remember the way they portrayed a focus group as a bunch of morons? Remember Jordan sitting behind the glass criticizing one guy's mispronunciation of Commedia Dell'Arte as if he were a moron for not knowing about something that most people have no reason to know anything about? And meanwhile she was pushing some unfeasible show about the United Nations.

Like I said, the show needed a more subtle approach--the kind that allows people to arrive at their own conclusions rather pushing their message down the viewer's throat. If you want to play the smart crowd, you gotta treat people like they can make up their own minds.

I'm trying to understand the "reading too much into it" point-of-view. They certainly presented many fairly minor situations with the most extreme gravitas. The problem with doing so is that there really isn't much at stake. Even the threat of cancellation doesn't mean much after the writers walk otu (the only people even close to being seriously invested in the continued existence of the show).

Say, anyone remember the name of the superhero character that the writers took with them? Short-Attention-Span-Man or something like that?


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (May 26, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Say, anyone remember the name of the superhero character that the writers took with them? Short-Attention-Span-Man or something like that?




It was Peripheral Vision Man.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 26, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I thought it was going to be better than _30 Rock._



It is _way, way better_ than _30 Rock_, in my book. I crush heavily on Tina Fey, but the show is _so_ bad that seeing her in nearly every scene wasn't enough to make it worth watching.

I also completely disagree with Felon. And y'know, the show actually _was_ smarter than a whole bunch of people who might be watching. Shockingly, I consider that a good thing.


----------



## satori01 (May 26, 2007)

I would say the show pretended at being smarter.  Ultimately while I love the cast, and I love the premise, the writing was poor, unrealistic, and self indulgent.

The 'issues' the show dealt with, were often only given the most trivial and superficial treatment, and once dealt with, disappeared into the ether, never to trouble faux Hollywood again.
The show w/in the show aspect never worked...there was never any real humor.

I would also say it suffered from DS9 syndrome, in that the show introduced too many characters at once, and there was no distinguishable personalities.  All the characters were quip meisters, all the scenes had the same, unrealistic dialogue, if always felt to me the script for Studio 60 had the the dialogue written and the character names were optional, and interchangeable.

In the beginning I liked Studio 60 more than Hereos, but Hereos got better, and Studio 60 became more and more a bad stage play.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 26, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The show seemed to be doomed by unreasonable expectations almost from the beginning.





Maybe.  But for me to enjoy it as a viewer it doesn't have to out-funny the bear, it just has to out-funny enough other shows.




			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I thought it was going to be better than 30 Rock.






			
				Fast Learner said:
			
		

> It is way, way better than 30 Rock, in my book.





Despite both shows taking place behind the scenes of similar fictitious shows, 30 Rock and Studio 60 should not be compared.


----------



## Crothian (May 26, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Studio 60's position wasn't just that mainstream American TV is dumbed-down, but that mainstream Americans are dumber than the people behind Stuido 60. Remember the way they portrayed a focus group as a bunch of morons? Remember Jordan sitting behind the glass criticizing one guy's mispronunciation of Commedia Dell'Arte




That's what I would call reading too much into it.  The focus group was not middle America it was out of work Hollywood people looking for a job.  And ya, they thought they were smarter then everyone else.  That was part of their character; these are flawed people.


----------



## el-remmen (May 26, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Despite both shows taking place behind the scenes of similar fictitious shows, 30 Rock and Studio 60 should not be compared.





I disagree.

I think 30 Rock accomplishes everything Studio 60 thought it would while being a hell of a lot funnier and relevant.  It touches on a lot of the same issues but _never _takes itself seriously - and it seemed to me that Studio 60 always took itself too seriously even when trying to be funny.  It is an absurd world out there, folks, stop pretending like it ain't. . .


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 26, 2007)

I don't really have much to add, except that I pretty much agree with Felon.

The first episode?  Great.  After that, downhill for a long time.  Some of the later episodes were okay, but by then the damage was done.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 26, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I think 30 Rock accomplishes everything Studio 60 thought it would (. . .)





It doesn't.  Nor does it try.  One is a half hour comedy while the other is a one hour drama with comedic moments.  I agree that 30 Rock does a better job at what it is meant to do than Studio 60 does at what it is meant to do, but that isn't a direct comparison.

As a point to consider, look at how they each deal with substance abuse.  30 Rock has raging alchoholism as comedy while one of the underlying premises of Studio 60 is how the entertainment industry is rife with a glamorized drug culture.


----------



## el-remmen (May 26, 2007)

I would say 30 Rock's handling of substance abuse if more relevant and real and not as after-school-special-cheesy. . .


----------



## Fast Learner (May 26, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Despite both shows taking place behind the scenes of similar fictitious shows, 30 Rock and Studio 60 should not be compared.



I'm not comparing them on the basis of their themes, just on whether I think the shows are any good. Heroes is great, Daybreak was good, Studio 60 is good, 30 Rock sucks. I'm purely comparing them on a "new shows this year" basis.


----------



## Felon (May 26, 2007)

PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> It was Peripheral Vision Man.



Thanks, I knew it was something devoid of premise.


----------



## Felon (May 26, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> I also completely disagree with Felon.



Well, I completely disagree with your complete disagreement.

Drive-by comments like that just so darn worthless. Easy to rebutt though, so I guess I shouldn't complain.


----------



## Silver Moon (May 26, 2007)

Okay Felon, how about this.    You make a lot of very valid points and I agree with some of them, but I still like the show so will continue to watch as long as it is still on the air.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 26, 2007)

Here you go, see how much more informative this is:



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Studio 60 was a lame show that deeply deserved cancellation.



No, it was an excellent show that deeply deserved renewal.



> It was not sharp. It was not smart. It preened itself on sharp smartness that it didn't actually deliver.



It was sharp and smart, and delivered regularly.



> People being all cocky and strident and making banter that largely consists of trying to screw up each other's witty metaphors is not all that "sharp".



Sure it is. It was the hallmark of Sports Night, and part of what made that show so great.



> Being snobbish and condescending towards mainstream televeision (which Jordan refers to as "illiterate programming") does not inherently qualify as "smart".



If you think mainstream television is awesome, it does inherently qualify you as dumb.



> I would agree with Alzrius that it was unfair for critics to compare it unfavorably to the West Wing, except that the show set itself up for that by pretending that every week's show was turning into the next Cuban Missile Crisis.



It was perfectly reasonable to compare it to West Wing, just as it's reasonable to compare it to Sports Night. 



> You've got a chairman and a persident of a network just hanging around this show having endless debates about content that really doesn't even have much impact simply because most folks go to bed before it comes on.



I suppose I don't disagree with this, but only because I don't understand it. This is a point of elucidation that wasn't in my "drive-by," so I suppose this detailed response is now worthwhile.



> In the first episode, Judd Hirsch gets up and delivers his little networksesque shpiel that's supposed to decry the dumbing-down of what was once a showcase for brilliant satire. Now, this is supposedly a reference to Saturday Night Live losing its teeth, but in actuality it's romanticizing some era of SNL that never was. I remember Chevy Chase taking pratfalls over ottomans as Gerald Ford, for Pete's sake.



No, his character wasn't decrying the state of SNL, it was decrying the state of television overall.



> Then there's an episode where they have a crisis over the sudden cancellation of a sketch about an inept bank robber taking hostages, all because some guy somewhere killed his family. Now, there's almost always someone somewhere being held hostage, so what is the message here? It's always in poor taste to have a sketch ever? Sorry, they really push the premise of Stuido 60's relevance too hard.



No, it's essential that a topical show like SNL (or the show-within-a-show-Studio-60) keep such things in mind, and was a good example.



> And the real nail in the coffin? The show-within-the-show was a flop. Sorkin just could not figure out how sketch comedy works. Remember the big, brilliant opening sketch they do on the second episode to demonstrate the edgy new direction? And it was what? The cast singing to the tune of the "Modern Major General" song from the Priates of Penzance. Oh yeah, Gilbert & Sullivan references are THE cutting edge. So many folks can relate. Most of the sketches we got to see (like the fake news and Jesus Christs as the head of Standards & Practices) was just trying to take Sorkin's talent for snide banter and package it as sketch comedy, and that just doesn't cut it.



The show-within-the-show was plenty good for the premise, which is about the behind-the-scenes of such a show, not the show itself.



> What a disappointment. Everything it was trying to accomplish needed to be executed with a much higher degree of subtlety.



It was executed brilliantly, and was doing its job great.



> The best I could say about the show is that it had a few cute chicks.



I disagree.



> Of course, the real irony is that in the face of all its smug condescension, it wound up getting replaced by "The Real Wedding Crashers".



That's not irony, it's simply a shame.

There, see how much more informative this was. Dude, I just disagree with everything you said. My spelling it out doesn't change anything. I disagree.


----------



## Felon (May 26, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Okay Felon, how about this.    You make a lot of very valid points and I agree with some of them, but I still like the show so will continue to watch as long as it is still on the air.



I certainly don't begrudge anyone continuing to watch the show. It disappointed the heck out of me, but to each their own.


----------



## Felon (May 26, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> There, see how much more informative this was. Dude, I just disagree with everything you said. My spelling it out doesn't change anything. I disagree.



Spelling it out has the benefit of hanging the basis of your opinion for others to see. Many people don't care what you can assert unless you can back it up. You ever seen that Monty Python skit about the guy looking for an arguement and all he gets is disagreement?

In this case, issuing a series of line-item disagreements that for the most part aren't substantiated by examples or anything else of an evidenciary nature undermines your disagreement, at least for those seeking something qualitative. In other words, elaboration helps people decide whether or not you're full of it.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 27, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> In this case, issuing a series of line-item disagreements that for the most part aren't substantiated by examples or anything else of an evidenciary nature undermines your disagreement, at least for those seeking something qualitative. In other words, elaboration helps people decide whether or not you're full of it.



If you take a moment to review your own argument, you'll find it lacks evidence and is purely a matter of opinion. As such, simple disagreement is just as effective.

I'm not trying to convince anyone it's a good show. I'm indicating that the items you claim are wrong with the show are things I disagree with, noting them as matters of opinion. Facts would need to be provided if I was disagreeing with something being claimed as fact.


----------



## Sigdel (May 31, 2007)

Hey, if we are lucky it will get it's own movie, like Serenity.   Or maybe it's own convention and line of toys.   
In all seriousness, it was a good show that was canned not because it got crappy ratings, but because it did not get good enough ratings. Sorkin used it, too overtly, as a soapbox. The two shows picked to replce it did worse than S60, and were pulled even quicker. But this is just a simple fact of T.V. For every show thats canned, their will be fans of the show that morn it's passing.
And yes, that does include Cop-Rock.



I think :\


----------



## John Crichton (May 31, 2007)

The newest ep was lots of fun.  The show suffered too much from high expectations than anything else.  I recently watched the first season of The West Wing and the characters were similarly scattered.  However, that show was a superior piece of entertainment to Studio 60.

I think Sorkin made a mistake in trying to make it too similar to his other show.  The format was fine but a lighter touch would have gone a long way to distance itself.

I do wish we would get another season.  Sorkin shows tend to get stronger over time after the characters fine a better pace and familiarity.


----------



## Silver Moon (May 31, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I think Sorkin made a mistake in trying to make it too similar to his other show.  The format was fine but a lighter touch would have gone a long way to distance itself.  I do wish we would get another season.  Sorkin shows tend to get stronger over time after the characters fine a better pace and familiarity.



I agree - it took him a while to get the pacing and mood right about West Wing too - his original premise for it was that Rob Lowe's character was to be the star and that Martin Sheen would only make a cameo appearance every four or five episodes - it didn't take long for them to decide to change that but it was really season two before they hit upon the right flow.

As for Studio 60 - I think Sorkin's main problem was the emphasis on man-woman relationships, which was never his strong point with West Wing - that worked as subplots instead of the main plot.   The sole exception to that were the excellent interchanges between CJ Craig and Danny which last week's Studio 60 played homage to.


----------



## John Crichton (May 31, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> I agree - it took him a while to get the pacing and mood right about West Wing too - his original premise for it was that Rob Lowe's character was to be the star and that Martin Sheen would only make a cameo appearance every four or five episodes - it didn't take long for them to decide to change that but it was really season two before they hit upon the right flow.



Good call on that one.  I will admit to knowing nothing about the West Wing when it was on the air.  I didn't start watching it until last year on DVD (only got through the middle of season 5 so far).  And even then I could tell that they were trying to focus on Lowe at the beginning.  The beauty of the show turned out to be all the other wonderful characters and how interesting they were.  With a solid base of so many great characters, the rest just fell into place as the weekly themes rolled in.  Not saying it was easy for Sorkin and crew, but the talented cast made it appear so.

I could also tell when Sorkin wasn't the head writer anymore, as I came to learn recently, was the start of season 5.



			
				Silver Moon said:
			
		

> As for Studio 60 - I think Sorkin's main problem was the emphasis on man-woman relationships, which was never his strong point with West Wing - that worked as subplots instead of the main plot.   The sole exception to that were the excellent interchanges between CJ Craig and Danny which last week's Studio 60 played homage to.



I agree, again.  West Wing was at its best when it focused on crisis mode White House stuff.  Sports Night, however, had some very nice man-woman relationship episodes.  Although the best relationship on that show was Dan & Casey.  Studio 60 needed more Matt & Danny and their interaction with the cast.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 31, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Sports Night, however, had some very nice man-woman relationship episodes.  Although the best relationship on that show was Dan & Casey.  Studio 60 needed more Matt & Danny and their interaction with the cast.



Ooh, great point.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 1, 2007)

Well, I finally got around to watching the new episode since it return, taking over _ER_ timeslot at this time.

Maybe I shouldn't put too much thought to it, but is it just sheer coincidence or is it ominous about the episode featuring Allison Janney that the two major players are not present (i.e., Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry)?


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 1, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, I finally got around to watching the new episode since it return, taking over _ER_ timeslot at this time.
> 
> Maybe I shouldn't put too much thought to it, but is it just sheer coincidence or is it ominous about the episode featuring Allison Janney that the two major players are not present (i.e., Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry)?



 Ominus meaning what?

Like the show is getting cancelled?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 1, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Ominus meaning what?
> 
> Like the show is getting cancelled?



That they're working on mid-season pilot episodes.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 1, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> That they're working on mid-season pilot episodes.



 What/who the heck are you talking about?


----------



## Crothian (Jun 1, 2007)

That was a fun episode.  It had some good laughs and some good drama.  The sketches still were mostly pretty bad but at least they explained that with Matt's drug use.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 1, 2007)

Agreed. It was definitely closer to the kind of quality I think they needed the whole time. And plenty of Westwingian drama, to boot.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jun 1, 2007)

I've been enjoying this discussion. I had high hopes for Studio 60, since I like Sorkin so much, but I've never been able to engage with it. I tried to watch a little bit last night, and I think I've honed in on why it didn't engage me. Unlike West Wing, there was comparatively little at stake in the drama.

Sure, the show could get cancelled or writers or actors fired, but that's comparatively small fry when placed up against the issues that were at stake in  West Wing, or A Few Good Men.

Still, there was a lot of good Sorkin wit, and I appreciate that. I just wish I could have found more of a reason to tune in.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 1, 2007)

I think the primary stars/ensemble members of most hour long dramas have an off week built into their schedules.  Episodes get written where those characters are elsewhere, in regard to the story.  It's my understanding they chose to use this episode to clear that off week from the stars who were not in it.  It was also an episode that is generic enough to be run out of sequence, if needed to be.  Makes sense with this show since any episode without just one of them means their love interest has to spend the whole episode talking about missing them.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 3, 2007)

The Breaking News episode is available online -

http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/?show=studio60

The drama is back and intense.  Very good stuff!


----------



## Crothian (Jun 3, 2007)

Cool, I'll have to try to watch that one again


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 3, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> The Breaking News episode is available online -
> 
> http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/?show=studio60
> 
> The drama is back and intense.  Very good stuff!



Yeah, that's the episode I was referring to when I said that this is closer to the kind of episode they needed all along. I realize now that it seems like I was referring to the C.J. Craig episode, which is definitely not what they needed more of.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 3, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's the episode I was referring to when I said that this is closer to the kind of episode they needed all along. I realize now that it seems like I was referring to the C.J. Craig episode, which is definitely not what they needed more of.





Ah, that makes more sense.  I had taken your Westwingian drama comment to have something to do with the Timothy Busfield/Allison Janney connection, though I thought it a bit odd.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 8, 2007)

I really liked that episode.  They had some very good flash back scenes.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 8, 2007)

I thought this was one of the best episodes we'd seen so far. Of course it's going to get good just before it's canceled...  :\


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 8, 2007)

HOLY COW was this ever a good episode! FANTASTIC! That was pure West-Wing-at-its-best quality. Man oh man.

The pregnancy issues and the captured soldier, both really great story lines. But man, the proposal, and then the 6-year montage of Matt and Harriet arguing about religion in a _very_ respectful way, THAT was just mind-blowing.

The tough thing for the show, I think, is that there's no way they could do that every week, since there's no way that much drama can happen to that cast all the time. With the West Wing, it was easy and realistic for there to be something big every other show or so.

I suspect Sorkin's idea, though, was that the show could be Sports Night alternating with West Wing (as it were). Which is plenty reasonable to me, anyway, but I guess it didn't work for the public.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 8, 2007)

I agree, great episode.   The TVGuide said Part 1 of 3, although it was really Part 2 of 4 in that case since it flowed directly from the previous episode.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 8, 2007)

K & R seriously rocked. If this ship is sinking, it's certainly going down with a whole lot of treasure.  What a pity.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 9, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> HOLY COW was this ever a good episode! FANTASTIC! That was pure West-Wing-at-its-best quality. Man oh man.
> 
> I suspect Sorkin's idea, though, was that the show could be Sports Night alternating with West Wing (as it were). Which is plenty reasonable to me, anyway, but I guess it didn't work for the public.




That was exactly why I hated it.

If Sorkin wanted to continue making global-political commentary, he should have made an other show about global politics.

The show's intrinsic premise, what it was sold on, was a show about a show.  It was much more akin to Sports Night than, from what I understand West Wing was like (only watched a couple eps).  If it were political commentary on the state of the media or Hollywood or even television viewers... well, it may still have stank, but at least it was the show's premise.

There were a few good points - for instance, news being costly, or Tom being pissed his brother got all the attention because of him.  Overall though, it was pretty snore inducing.

Weber and Corddery (and Busfield, when they use him) are carrying the show, as far as I'm concerned.  Matthew Perry helps out when he can, but that's a script problem, not an actor problem.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 15, 2007)

K & R Part II has aired.  I was hoping for more resolution but the drama was high.  Good show.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 15, 2007)

being part 2 of 3 it was what I expected drama wise.  I was not expecting the rant at the press at the end.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 15, 2007)

I'm not really happy with this 3 parter. I can kind of see why NBC didn't want to show them in the spring. This is really moving the show away from its comedy premise and going all West Wing on the viewer. While the show in general is good, if Sorkin wanted to a world affairs show he should have gone with something more relevant (Like the UN drama pitched durring Studio 60).


----------



## Crothian (Jun 22, 2007)

I was really hoping part 3 of three would have some sort of conclusions.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 22, 2007)

That kind of surprised me as well.  Silly to call it a three part episode when the story started one episode before and doesn't end with part three of three.  

I'm a little torn about the show at this point.  I like it where there is an element of drama mixed into the show, but these past few episodes have been getting a little heavy with the drama.  My wife stopped at one point last night and said, "wasn't this show more of a comedy before?"

And I'm not liking episodes that don't have a conclusion because I figure at some point they are just going to stop airing any more and I _hate_ being left hanging.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 22, 2007)

I thought it was a four-parter. In fact, I'm almost certain that I read that back when the first episode was aired.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 22, 2007)

They're doing a good job with the last couple episodes of ensuring that I won't miss it when its gone.  Too bad, because while I disliked West Wing, I loved Sports Night and was digging this until now.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 22, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> being part 2 of 3





I guess I missed that, being that I catch the show online, apparently.  They need to straighten out their online set up for this week, too.  It's missing the finale of the third part.




			
				Fast Learner said:
			
		

> I thought it was a four-parter. In fact, I'm almost certain that I read that back when the first episode was aired.





And the plot thickens.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 22, 2007)

The birth and Tom's brother story lines started with "Breaking News."  We have just completed K & R parts I, II and III and next week the episode is called "What Kind of Day Has It Been," which is supposed to bring an end to the day, and hopefully its crises.  I believe this is going to be the final episode unless NBC decides to bring it back midseason 2008.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 29, 2007)

And then the final episode was aired.  I'm just pleased they were able to wrap it all up and even though it was a predictable Hollywood ending there is closure.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 29, 2007)

Yep, it was good to at least not be left hanging in the middle of a story (Do you hear me FOX and Drive!).  

Here's hoping Sorkin can find something else to inspire him.  I hope this time he stays away from the media as his focus since it seems that most people don't want to watch a TV show about TV shows.  I don't want to prematurely lose a third show of his I really enjoyed, like Sports Night and Studio 60.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 29, 2007)

My final thoughts are that the series OK. I didn't mind watching it and I am glad they wrapped it up. I am also not dissapointed that it is over and I wont miss it next year.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 29, 2007)

I think that it is a series worth having around.  There's a lot of crap on televsion is this might not be the best but it surely is not low enough to deserve cancelation.  Sometimes you have to retain some stuff that is better than the ratings it might get.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 30, 2007)

Good finish. My guess is that is was a fairly expensive cast, making "ok" ratings not good enough. With a bunch of largely unknowns, non-blockbuster ratings are more financially easy to swallow.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Jun 30, 2007)

A DVD set of the show is scheduled for October, http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=7558.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 2, 2007)

PhoenixDarkDirk said:
			
		

> A DVD set of the show is scheduled for October, http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=7558.



 While I enjoyed the show a lot, I'm not sure I can justify spending the cash to buy it on DVD.  If I was convinced great DVD sales would bring the show back ala Family Guy, I would do it, but I doubt that will happen in this case.  By the time they'll have the sales numbers to think about it, many of the cast members will probably have moved on to other projects.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 2, 2007)

I imagine I'll get it on DVD.  It was entertaining enough that I'd watch it a few times and enjoy it.


----------

