TVSquad

I completely agree with you, Bob. For a pilot - for a show with a premise that before I saw the pilot, kinda had me scratching my head and saying 'why?' - I really found myself enjoying it. My biggest disappointment with the pilot was the feeling that Judd Hirch's character was a one off deal and that he won't be returning at all. He took every scene he had (the few he had) and ran with them, and I loved it.

The chemistry between Whitford and Perry is going to be the glue that holds this show together, and I really liked what I saw between them in the pilot.

This says nothing of giving a show more than a cursory glance, based solely off the pilot, and saying 'no thanks' especially when it comes from such an award-winning, experienced team as Sorkin and Schlamme. Of all the new shows this season, this is the one I'm looking forward to most. (In fact, it's only second over all to the return of Battlestar Galactica, in anticipation.)

Reply

I disagree with the EW review, except on one key aspect, Amanda Pete. I know some people seem to like her, but i think she is a terrible actress, especially for this kind of role. I'm not buying her as the president of a network at all. Its not just that she looks wrong for the part (she seems a little too young to head a network) I don't think she has the chops. That doesn't mean I don't like the show, or that I don't hope she gets better. Hopefully the second episode will be better. I'm also a little lukewarm on the actress who plays one of the big three on the show. Anyway, we'll see.

Reply

'The Nine' is also my most eagerly awaited. As for 'Studio 60', I liked the pilot a lot and thought it did what it had to do - sell the show and convince an audience to tune in again next week.

I also wish Judd Hirsch was going to be on more often. I could have seen him as being the backstage TV version of a Jed Bartlet. But I have a feeling Perry and Whitford weren't going to allow themselves to fall into the same problem that Rob Lowe had when Sheen's President slowly overshadowed him on 'West Wing'.

And I have to agree with Dalton Ross on Amanda Peet. Well, I wouldn't say awful, but not very good. Pretty, but out of her depth.

But it could have been worse. They could have hired Denise Richards for the role. Now THAT would have been classified as "pretty, but awful"!

Reply

I have disagreed with EW reviews before. They lambasted Family Guy when it was FIRST on the air, while I found it to be one of the funniest shows I had ever seen. I kinda see why they would pick out the "leading lady" to criticize. It's tough to earn gravitas on a TV drama (even though Sorkin's writing is funny), when your resume lists The Whole Ten Yards (sorry Chandler) and Saving Silverman, but even harder for a woman IMO. I'll give her some time to get her legs before passing an absolute judgment because I think she can talk the talk, and that's what a Sorkin show comes down to. I have to admit, I wasn't too keen on Felicity Huffman until I saw at least 5 or 6 Sports Night episodes.

Reply

My only problem with Studio 60 was that just like Judd Hirsch, a lot of it could be one off. The first episode kind of built up this picture of Studio 60 which then gets swept away with the change in personnel. As such, we don't know what we're gonna end up seeing. Will we see much of the show or will it be mostly backstage? If we do see the show will it be a Larry Sanders type contrast in the styles? And so on and so forth. The West Wing kind of hit the ground running in so much as it set up a premise and characters and then just started telling stories.

Reply

Somewhat off topic, but about STUDIO 60, is whether any review has mentioned how Amanda Peet and Sarah Paulson worked together in the WB's short lived JACK AND JILL? (what ever happened to Ivan Sergei?)

Reply

Peet was embarassing in the pilot. She has no craftiness or spark of intelligence. But besides a little over-aggressive music, I thought the pilot was otherwise very good.

Reply

Ithought the pilot was great. I echo concerns about the female characters, although I think the same team (Sorkin & Schlamme) picked incredible actresses on West Wing. Still, they had a few early misfires on that show, too, amongst the women. Maybe they're just better at casting the men. And let's face it, in all these shows the men are the most important characters, the "glue," in the pilots. The women (C.J. Kregg in WW, and Donna Moss) have to work their way into more important places in the story. But when they've proven they have the chops, and especially after the audience has proven it likes the women's characters, they're given more prominent roles.

Again, I thought this pilot was terrific. Brad and the guy from Friends are good actors, and the dialogue is amazing.

Reply

I thought the pilot of Studio was good, not great, but it shows a lot of potential. I thought Amanda Peet was great for the role she had and I think Paulson has real potential in her role. It all depends on the whims of Sorkin, who can be a fickle writer. Personally, I thought Sports Night was over-rated and West Wing took nearly an entire season before it was good and interesting. Studio 60 is definitely worth the wait -- hell anything is better than CSI: Miami.

Reply

Mase - I must admit I'm really excited about seeing these two women work together based on my affection for the first season of "Jack and Jill."

I bought Amanda Peet as the studio exec, whatever her age. But I also bought the success of Matthew Perry's character at what appears to be an equally young age, which no one has concerns about. Women can be successful early, too.

Reply

I agree with Dalton about Amanda Peet. She had this dopey, creepy half-smile the whole time. Weirded me out.

Reply