TVSquad

It was you. ;)

Reply

i just want to see the crazy christans sketch, if they dont show that then isnt nbc punking out like "nbs"

Reply

I agree with Bob -- the sketch was funnier than most SNL cold opens (complained about here!) that stick to news or political show parodies with no new jokes.

Some of SNL's most beloved openings were musical numbers -- I'm thinking here of Steve Martin's "Not Gonna Phone It In Tonight" number.

Mixing the pomposity of the G&S tune with the self-referential, self-deprecating lyrics worked, I thought. And imagine if that's how SNL opened -- the sheer production value and energy/effort that a big number takes creates an air of excitement as you watch it unfold live.

Reply

I'm with Bob. And, let's face it, if SNL started off with that rather than the endless parade of political parodies that start the show, people would sit up and watch.

Reply

I absolutely loved the open.

Reply

Joel - I'm totally with you. Except I thought the whole episode kinda sucked. Almost every time Sorkin was trying to be funny, it just felt awkward. I really wanted to like this show. . .

Reply

I agree that the cold openning sucked. I sat there trying to decide if it was really bad or if it was because we already knew about the "blow" jokee and how the sketch was going to play out. Either way, they need to get some sort of comedy writer to help out or else don't show us any of the sketches.

Reply

The show, as a whole, was good. The Cold Open, not good. It wasn't terrible, but think about the goal -- to say that Studio 60 was back and funnier than ever. A Gilbert & Sullivan song parody? Um, okay. In the episode, Perry talk about Studio 60 is supposed to be the cutting edge in "cool". A Gilbert & Sullivan song parody is not cool. That looked more like a (forgettable) opening to a bad Oscars. I don't think anyone would watch such a Cold Open on SNL and say, "Wow, that was really cutting edge and hysterical." And I feel that is what they needed: cutting edge and hysterical. It wasn't even a sketch. After all that build-up, it would have been nice to see them launch with a great, funny SKETCH -- not a musical number. So, overall, Studio 60 was very good last night. But the Cold Open at the end showed that Sorkin needs some help with the funny.

Reply

I thought it was a great open as well.

I was under the impression that they were doing the whole "first" episode as a comedy musical and that's why they didn't need to find a new musical guest.

Reply

I agree, it wasn't very funny, particularly if compared to the Steve Martin opening Lex mentioned. That's probably SNL's high-water mark though - unfunny openings are the norm for SNL, and it looks like the same will be true of the fictional show. It was also round two for the whole Sorkin/G&S thing - G&S was written into episodes of The West Wing also. Lame. The religious right bashing combined with the pre-show JC-heavy prayer followed by what was almost a prayer in the cold open itself was very strange, to the point of being downright offputting.

Reply

I've enjoyed both episodes immensely, and I thought the G&S take-off was brilliant. Certainly better than anything SNL's done in real life for decades.

The song/sketch worked nearly perfectly in context, and was funny from a TV viewer (read addict) POV.

Reply

I thought it was funny and well done. Then again, I'm a G&S fan.

Reply

I thought it was pretty cool.

I don't think the idea was ever that they would write "the funniest cold open ever" but that they would point the finger at themselves & hope that they could pull it off in 3 days.

I get the feeling that the sketches are secondary to the idea of backstage politics anyway, and we'll probably (hopefully?) not see much front stage stuff.

Reply

I agree that it wasn't particularly funny, but I don't think it sucked. It was fairly amusing, but I think it was a very fitting way to start the new show.

Admittedly it wasn't the work of genius that Perry appeared to think it was in his office, but it certainly wasn't bad.

Reply

I liked it. But then again I like G&S. If they are not your cup of tea, then you probably think it blows.

Reply

I don't think the idea for the cold open was flaccid, and I thought the writing in the sketch was good, but also I agree that the sketch flopped. I blame the music. According to the show, The LA Philharmonic came in to lend a credible, bombastic musical hand o the sketch. Uh, no. It sounded more like MIDI than the Philharmonic, and it really made the presumably opulent Gilbert & Sullivan parody seem almost totally lifeless. Imagine how much funnier it would have been with the proper orchestral music for which it called. I'm assuming this is Snuffy Walden's fault. As much as I love Sorkin's television, I don't understand why he keeps working with that guy; his scoring is terrible.

Other than the somewhat weak show-within-the-show, I thought the episode was terrific.

Reply

I think it was sub-par. I kept hoping they'd start it, but fade away, leaving the brilliance to the viewer (you know, imagination? oh, is that dead already?).
There was no way to live up to the hype... And I'm a G&S fan.
And yes, Sorkin needs to loosen up.

Reply

Oh, no, it really wasn't very good at all--I think the problem was all the build-up; there's no way it could equal what the show had already said about it. Also, I'm thinking that real fans of the show would probably think it was funnier to make fun of Wes than a producer who's been gone for years. I want to see Harriet in action. If she's so brilliant, man, I want to see proof. I think that's probably going to be the show's major dilemma; if your plot depends on the production of a show (especially comedy in a different register from the comedy of your behind-the-scenes show), you have to be careful not to raise audience expectations of the material too high.

Reply

It wasn't just you, Joel. While the cold open had a couple of mild laughs, it wasn't funny *enough* often enough. I think the thing that bothered me the most was how many times the jokeless portions of the lyrics were repeated, which spaced the comedic payoffs too far apart; as a piece of comedy writing, it needed at least one more pass through the "half as long, twice as funny" filter.
I don't expect Studio 60 to be cutting edge comedy, but I'd like to hear more of a distinction between the dialogue "voice" and the sketch-writing voice.

Reply

I think it just goes to further Sorkin's G&S fetish.

Reply