(S01E03) I'll get to the review in a moment, but first, a confession.When I was a struggling writer who lived from paycheck to paycheck (when I had a paycheck), I signed up to do a lot of focus groups. They were easy, they paid $75, and all you had to do was sit around for an hour or two with a bunch of other people and talk about a product or a service. The thing is, and anyone who has gone to a focus group will admit this if they're being honest, is that they are filled with liars. Including me. They talk to you on the phone and ask you a bunch of questions about the focus group they're having, to see if they need you. Do you like Austrailian wine? Sure, I drink it all the time! Are you allergic to anything? Yup, I'm allergic to peanuts! Do you have kids? Oh yeah, I have five!
Anything for the $75.
That came to mind tonight with this episode. A focus group is shown the latest episode of Studio 60. They like the show for the first two questions, but later have a bad reaction to a complex sketch that Jeanie is in, and the group is also asked the question "Do you think the show is patriotic or unpatriotic?" The info gets out to the cast and crew, thanks to Ricky and Ron. But even beyond that, an ex-husband is trying to sell a book tells the press about Jordan's drunk driving past. She doesn't have luck with old boyfriends, does she?
The third episode of any show is always an interesting episode. A first episode is always new and exciting; the second episode is a continuation, where you wonder if the second can be as good as the first; and the third is when the viewer says, is this show going somewhere? Are they going to do something different? It's the episode where a new show either has you for good or starts to lose you. Now, Studio 60 had me at hello, but it has me for good after this episode. We learn more about the background of the characters, Ricky and Ron are more prominent, we get to see a little more of the industry stuff that shows go through. A lot of the plot of this ep, the whole thing with the focus group and needing to retain a certain percentage of the previous week's show, that could be said about Studio 60 too.
There is a balancing act that Aaron Sorkin and company have to do with this show. They not only have to write the NBC version of Studio 60, but I can sense that people are going to want to see the NBS version of Studio 60 too. They want to see them PROVE that Matt and Danny are actually helping this show. Now, some of the stuff they've shown as sketches has worked well, and some of it has been sorta SNL-ish and pretty damn bad. Maybe it's Sorkin way of showing that putting together a show like this in just one week is hard work, whether there's a power failure or not (as happens in this ep). This episode actually showed the entire week, how they put the show together, and unlike not showing the "Crazy Christians" sketch last week, we got to see some of the stuff. As I said, some worked, some were just bad ideas (the Tom Cruise reference is already out of date and lame, though Simon Helberg is a talented guy). A lot of it was clever. But I'm beginning to think, is it really fair for us to expect Sorkin and company to create two full shows every single week? NBC's Studio 60 and NBS' Studio 60? Personally, I don't think so. Give us a few sketches here and there, but make the show about the characters at NBS and what happens to them and what happens to the show.
I don't need to see an entire movie being made on Entourage to believe that Vince is a good, successful actor. I'm happy just being in that world with the characters and being entertained.
I could get tedious and just keep repeating the same qualities over and over again, that the show has great writing, a great cast, direction, etc, etc, etc. But even beyond all that, isn't it refreshing to have a TV show that isn't a reality show, a show about a woman who solves crimes and talks to the dead, or has the word CSI or Law and Order in the title? A TV show for adults?
Even people who only think this show is just so-so should still be hoping it succeeds. I happen to love it still, not just for how it does what it does but also because we need a show like this.
Gone Too Soon: Invasion
Scrubs season nine -- An early look
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
10-02-2006 @ 11:38PM
Tricia said...
I am thoroughly enjoying this show, even if they did slam my state to make a point (7 guys in Tupelo, MS blah blah blah). I think Matthew Perry (it is so GOOD to see him again!) and Bradley Whitford (I did not realize how cute he is!) play off of each other so well and their friendship seems to be very real. I know they are good actors, but some kind of connection comes through when they are together on the screen. Hopefully, the show will keep good ratings and will continue for several years.
Reply
10-02-2006 @ 11:49PM
SJ said...
Just some people I noticed on the show: Dawn (Lucy Davis) from the British version of The Office (she only appeared for a second) and the actress who played Brianna Barksdale on The Wire.
Next week's episode looks exciting.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 10:28AM
Chris said...
Okay I love the show but one thing that bugs me is that Studio 60 and SNL exist in the same universe. In the mid-1970s Lorne created SNL and in the mid-1980s Wes created Studio 60.
Yet Studio 60 is a total ripoff! Except its produced in LA, is on Fridays, they write the show in 4 days instead of 5. How is Wes that great of a guy, a legend, if he only copied every single segment off Lorne's show? 60 News, being live, 1.5 hours long, musical guest, celebrity host, on at 11:30 EST etc. Is there going to be an episode where Lorne punches Wes? A former SNL writer insult Danny and Matt?
It would've been better if SNL was never mentioned. Studio 60 could've had their own 'MadTV' as competition, not some show that they stole everything from.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 12:05AM
RevJonathan said...
Man, I didn't think Studio 60 would ever offend me, but that sketch with the game show, that was just Sorkin preaching...it wasn't even remotely funny.
Seriously, if you're going to make fun of my religion, I can take it, but when you're trying to tell a joke it needs to be funny, otherwise you're making me stay up to hear people poke fun at christians, honestly, I can just turn on CNN for that.
This isn't the West Wing anymore, the fake show should be funny.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 12:16AM
Klo said...
I agree with the Rev. As a Christian, I can take the jokes....if they're funny. If they're not, it just becomes insulting.
I found Harriet's bear joke to be the funniest part of the NBS Studio 60.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 12:56AM
gK said...
Yeah I felt they were overdueing the Christian jokes.. seriously nothing is more unfunny than basically making fun of the same subject matter every single week *cough SNL *cough. Its getting old real fast. The little snippets of the sketches were really not that funny either. But what keeps me watching is the chemistry between Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford, its great to watch them.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 2:02AM
bgdc said...
Third episode I've seen. The show's not growing on me at all. It tries very hard to be smart and funny. But it's not. Instead the writing really feels pretentious, ridiculously sentimental and aimless.
Sorkin's style bugged the hell out of me with The West Wing but set the same style in the world of SNL and it's just obnoxiously awful. There's nothing to connect to. Nothing compelling...oh will they tell the joke about the high school in east bumf^ck? Will they retain 90% of their opening numbers? Come on you can't build a show around such self-absorbed and banal characters.
Will this show last until December? I sure hope not.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 2:02AM
J. Free said...
i think i finally figured out the part of the show that bothers me: there is no outside world. the west wing was great because it showed the inner workings of the white house AND how they affected everyone's life outside of their job. you might say it takes time to do that, but wasn't the pilot for West Wing the episode where Sam sleeps with a prostitute/law student and then also meets Leo's daughter? that is already two characters outside of work that give a context for what happens in the office. i am going to keep watching because overall the show is really good, but i really hope to get more information about the characters' outside life so i can get more attached.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 2:14AM
Allen said...
I want to continue what j.free is talking about because my wife and I JUST finished watching tonight's episode and we talked about that in particular. This show feels very very claustrophobic. And, while WW also took place in, basically, one place, it affected the rest of the world so we believed there was one.
Even mentioning Ealing didn't help. This show lives in a bubble and I'm not sure how long we are going to care.
It's ALWAYS difficult for actors to portray actors. Nothing is harder than an actor that no one knows having to play a superstar of a tv show who can just "make something funny". The problem with that is, if we never see her do just that, we won't believe it and if she tries and fails we won't buy the show's premise. They have really written themselves into a corner.
And I want to address something someoneelse said about having to make NBS's and NBC's show. Forgive me, but Murphy Brown seemed to handle that with great aplomb. I never did not believe that everyone was who they said they were and the show within the show was always believeable. This is not impossible but if you can't get away with it, don't even try. MTM barely tried. And the Dick Van Dyke show, well, how often did we see The Allen Brady Show? We didn't have to and we almost never saw the sketches.
I don't think it's too much to ask for them to come up with soemthing funny, sketchwise. The show has a budget. Hire some Groundlings or Acme actors to come in and give them some of their better sketches. They could use the money, believe me.
Laurence O'Donnel used to produce WW as well as DiDi Myers. You think they were brought on to the show because they DIDN'T know the inner workings of politics? Get some real sketch comedy writers and stop this weird-ass Commedia Dell'arte/Gilbert and Sullivan bs.
And they really need to stop mentioning classic SNL sketches because it just makes me realize that the show is not as good as what they are talking about.
I will shut up now. I really wanted to LOVE this show. It just doesn't seem to be grabbing me.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 2:21AM
Steven Rubio said...
It is indeed possible to make a show about a show, and pull off the making of both shows. You can even do it in a half-hour format. Aaron Sorkin proved that with Sports Night. It's still the best work he's ever done.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 2:48AM
Suzie said...
I agree with what Steven Rubio says about Sports Night being Sorkin's best work. Still, though I believed Charles and Krause as sports anchors and I thought the show-within-a-show was credible, Sorkin was never able to capture even a hint of the amazing Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann Sportscenter, which is supposedly what inspired him in the first place. The teasers were often great, but the anchors' attempts at humor too often fell flat. Their office banter was a whole lot more sparkling than what we heard on their sports show.
As to the claustrophobia, by the end of the third episode of Sports Night, I felt I knew a great deal about the lives of the characters beyond the workplace and about their history with one another. Sorkin needs to go back and study Sports Night. And, as I've said here before, he needs to go back to doing a half-hour show.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 2:52AM
Anna said...
The bear was definitely the funniest thing. I laughed for about five minutes each time she did it. And the joke it replaced... was infinitely less funny. I only actually got it after they explained it at the end, and I've read and seen both "The Crucible" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream," as well as discussed them to death in college-level classes.
The "Science, Schmience" sketch not being funny I could handle, because we saw it in rehearsal early in the week and overheard it in dress - not a final piece at all. I think this show is finally starting to grow on me. Last week I was skeptical, now I'm starting to believe Sorkin will actually pull it off.
But I agree. He needs sketch writers. Just like Matt, he's going to kill himself (at least metaphorically) if he tries to write an entire episode every week by himself.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 4:29AM
Jonny Rice said...
In response to Chris' displeasure over all the SNL mentions, Sorkin has got to mention both SNL and NBC if he wants to get away with what he's doing. Most of his criticisms about network television in general have to be directed at a target of some sort: and within the reality of the show, those targets are NBS and the head honchos at NBS. If there were not references to those “outside” networks and shows, then the actual NBC might take offence at Sorkin's criticism. It's a pretty thin veil, when you think of it (sort of like, "there's no one behind the curtain!" even though everyone knows there IS someone back there – we, or NBC, suspend our disbelief for the sake of the illusion). But the veil is there for deniability, for both NBC and Sorkin, should the criticisms of NBS and NBS’s Studio 60 hit a little too close too home. Even though it’s an incredibly lame veil, it still manages to cover everybody’s ass.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 8:10AM
ooda said...
Personally I loved this episode, and it could be that I don't watch Saturday Night Live that I'm liking the sketches. Mind you, there aren't amazing, but considering the calibre of the rest of the show, it's still forgivable.
I'll be interested to see if Tina Fey comes onto the show (behind the scenes) after 30 Rock gets cancelled, or where she takes her career now. Hopefully her leaving SNL was a chance that will pay out.
Sports Night I really like, but I prefer the in-show in Studio 60 to the one in Sports Night. It's also not a fair comparison to make. It takes a lot more to write a comedy sketch show verses a sports news show, and with Studio 60 being a hour verses half and hour, we see more of the in-show, hence, more to criticize.
Side note: I just hope having Heroes as a lead in will help its ratings this week.
Reply
10-05-2006 @ 12:32PM
Lisa said...
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I loved the show from the beginning and I'm still loving it.
I was a huge Friends fan, and I think Matt Perry is doing a credible job of getting past the role of Chandler Bing. I wasn't even wondering where Joey was. I think he and Bradley have a great chemistry and look forward to seeing the two of them on screen together. Though I have to say I'm not in love with the character of Harriet, and I don't see much chemistry between her and Matt.
As someone who has never looked at a Sorkin show, I don't have any expectations and I'm not making any comparisons. The truth is I love the dialogue, and I will likely watch the show as long as it is on.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 9:10AM
007 said...
I have to admit I was bored to tears after seeing the pilot. I just didn't care what happened. I still have issues with the pretensions of the writing (which work so much better on a political show than on a show centered around comedy), but it is growing on me a little. For now, though, I'll only watch it if there's nothing else to do.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 10:52AM
Beezus said...
This show has grabbed me, and I will continue to watch. I think all of the aforementioned elements can work in its own way - give the writers time to play out the stories. Regarding the "claustrophobia" and there being no outside world - for people that work on SNL and 'Studio 60', there is no outside world; you work constantly, sleep on the set, and hopefully produce a great show. I think they're doing a great job of portraying just that - that being a part of a show like this IS your life.
Reply
10-04-2006 @ 3:35PM
Jim said...
It's impossible for me to watch this show without constantly comparing it to Sports Night, which was probably my favorite show of all time. There are so many parallels: Studio 60=Sports Night, NBS=CSC, Matt and Danny = Casey and Dan, Jordan = Dana, Jack Rudolph = JJ, etc. Sorkin's characters fairly idealized, and when they have a flaw it's something innocent like forgetting names or a harmless coke addiction.
But Studio 60's characters just aren't as instantly likable. The satire is a little forced, and at times it seems like comedy is sacrificed for drama. Somehow Sports Night found room for both -- in half an hour hour. The show had far more laugh-out-loud moments, but the drama still felt real (i.e. Dan's on-air apology in Episode 2).
I wanted so badly for Studio 60 to be Sports Night, part 2. It's not. But I have enough confidence in Sorkin to hope that once the show decides what it does want to be, that will be something worth watching.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 11:10AM
John Howard said...
I love the show, but I think it has two problems. First, while I don't think the sketches have been too bad, the less I see of the fictional show, the better. The show shouldn't be about the content of the fictional show, just the process of producing it. Second, why on earth would anyone even remotely care about the president of a network getting a DUI? Even if it was current, I wouldn't care, but 8 years ago? And a tell-all book about living with her, that's a real stretch. I also don't see many people being concerned about the drug problems of a producer.
Also, during the power outage, it looked like the countdown clock said 3 hours. I don't see any reason to have the clock up there at all if they can't make it accurate.
Reply
10-03-2006 @ 11:25AM
Dave T. said...
Bob,
I can't disagree with you more! The third episode is the make or break BUT this week was awful. I blogged about it obviously:
http://www.firejeffzucker.com
But there is no point to watching again. You like the two main characters but Sorkin has to throw in dozens of other people who no one will care about. Also, what TV writer and director out there get asked for autographs?
Sports night is a good comparison too. It shows that the subject of a sketch comedy show was the real mistake. we'd get used to the characters eventually but following a show in a show is a labor especially one that isn't funny.
Heroes did the exact opposite for me. I'm now into it despite all the sci fi cliches. Xmen, Xfiles, tales from the crypt etc.
Reply