TVSquad

Um... I think the problem people are having is whether or not this show is funny. Well I think it is a show ABOUT a show that is trying to be funny, a drama about being funny, not actual funny. If the show was about a DRAMA SHOW, I think fans would love it. God if Sorkin could write a show about the inside drama behind The West Wing, the funny stuff would be drama (life) that is funny and not about sketches are not really funny. Seriously are sketch comedy shows really ever funny - isn't the irony of not being funny what is funny?

Reply

sad, b/c i think this show gets a little better every week.

Reply

I disagree. I think the show is sagging because the story is too focused on Harriet/Matt. We don't really care yet if they are together or not, yet 1/2 of the last 2 shows have been devoted to this topic.

Let's start seeing Danny or Jordan's private life and it will get more interesting.

And yes, they talk to fast to understand all the words.

Reply

Like I said on another board, NBC needs to put Studio 60 on hiatus while stopping production for a few weeks. Then they need to announce that the series is moving to Thursdays after sweeps following The Office. Finally I would hire Scary Movie's David Zucker to head writer/excutive producer to Aaron Sorkin.

Reply

The problem is that the show thinks, and its fans think, that it's a better show than it really is.

There was an absurd amount of self-flaggelation amongst Sorkin fans when the first episode aired centering on how the show was God's gift to television. But casual observers did not see the same brilliance that the Sorkin obsessed were blinded by. In fact, they saw an overly pretentious, gabby, haughty intellect-stroke fest that takes itself and its subject far too seriously.

People were expected to care about television writers, performers, and executives because they were told it was important, but given no other reasons to think so. For example, normal people don't care or even notice if a TV executive had a drunk driving arrest 8 years prior, but it is presented on the show as if it's the news story of the year. The characters are not even thinly disguised platforms for Sorkin to soapbox his positions from on high.

The fact that the sketches aren't funny or interesting on the show that is supposedly a high-watermark of humor, pop culture, and political commentary wouldn't have nearly as much of an impact if the rest of the show didn't ring so hollow to so many people.

Reply

A portion of the problem is premise (go alliterative me!) - in that the show is Studio 60, about this late-night sketch comedy show, yet we have characters like Jack and Jordan, who really wouldn't have that much involvement in the daily runnings of the show. This lean to having a B-plot about the network really shifts focus off the show itself. A better move would be to have Jordan sent by the network to co-exec with Danny, and push the network's agenda more. Better conflict, less focus, better use of your talent.

As a viewer interested in the behind-the-scenes of the show, the actual sketches aren't important to me. In fact, skip trying to show anything funny at all in the sketches, and let us ONLY see the setups or the un-funny bits when you HAVE to show us the show.

Ditch the celebrity guests. Real sketch comedy shows need them, dramas about sketch comedy do not, unless they serve the story. Focus on your main characters and their relationships and conflicts, and you'll be fine.

Worry more about making this a drama and having us invested in the characters' lives and relationships than making it about the show within the show.

Reply

"There was an absurd amount of self-flaggelation amongst Sorkin fans when the first episode aired centering on how the show was God's gift to television. But casual observers did not see the same brilliance that the Sorkin obsessed were blinded by."

Funny. I'm no Sorkin fan, but I love Studio 60. What now?

Reply

I doubt, somehow, that moving the show opposite Grey's Anatomy, Hopperfan, would bode well for its future. It needs to be moved, but needs to be up against something that's a little less of a juggernaut. It may need to be an hour earlier, even on the same night. It has potential, but it is true that the show within the show isn't funny. If they are going to show it, it needs to be funny. But if Studio 60 is truly a drama, maybe the comedy show shouldn't be shown. Whitford and Perry deserve an audience that isn't confused. I didn't find the Holly Hunter thing funny, but was oddly amused by the Juliette Lewis impersonation. What does that say about me?

Reply

Well done Greg, my feelings exactly.

Reply

if not for NBC's football coverage sunday nights, id rather that studio 60 was on then (to replace the timeslot vacated by the west wing finale) ...

as they are right now, obviously viewers arent drawn to this as much as the sexiness of what about brian, or the formulaic CSI (not to mention monday night football). throw it up in a slot where it isnt necessarily up against established franchises, and it might survive.

( as it is, i'm taping either brian or studio, while watching the other split screened with MNF, though i doubt many viewers are as diligent as i am.)

Reply

yeah, i think greg nailed it. i watched the show for the first two episodes (mostly because bob sassone said to) but gave up on it. it's just not interesting enough. i really don't care about network execs problems, and instead of trying to make me care, it assumes that i already do.

maybe if it could have some really incredible sketches then i would care, but it just tells us that the sketches are good without proving it.

Reply

The thing is that funny is funny, you either are or you aren't. With politics there isn't so black and white so you can play up that people are brilliant without really having to prove it, Bartlett can sound as intelligent as you want but we didn't ever seen any of his economics put into practise. With The West Wing they could get away with talking a good game and it was more than enough, Studio 60 doesn't have that luxury. Larry Sanders was very similar in that it attempted to show the on screen and behind the scenes of a fictional show, the thing is that by being a late night show it didn't have to be hilarious, they could film around laugh out lout bits and in a way if it wasn't funny it could help the show, luckily it was funny but it had a better safety net in its structure. If Studio 60 isn't funny, particularly whilst pretending that it is lauded as being so, then it makes the whole show begin to fall apart.

Reply

Aside from all the problems with sketches not being funny and the lack of reality, etc., I wish they would focus on some of the other characters. I like DL Hugley and Nate Coddry but they underused on the show. Although I thought Amanda Peete was a bad choice as the network head, she has grown on me and I want to see more of her fixing the network and more intereaction with Jack. Paulie is right that those two are around the show way too often. Also, one of the problems with the sketches, besides the writing, are the actors. I'm not sure that any of real actors have any sketch expierence, and it shows.

Reply

This show was oversold.

Many of us loved--loved--The West Wing or Sports Night. These types of shows are character-heavy with very dense scripts and nuance.

I think the reason why Studio 60 has become the weekly pinata is that NBC and the media really hyped this show . . . to its detriment.

When the show starts to find its sea legs, all this talk will probably go away.

Reply

Heroes is the EXACT WRONG lead-in for Studio 60. Put Studio 60 on after a show that skews a little older and a little more savvy, and I think they'll find better numbers.

Reply

I also agree with Greg. And I don't think that Matthew Perry is a good enough reason to keep watching, 'cause as time goes by it's becoming apparent that he's basically a cranky Chandler. Bradley Whitford is a lot more compelling.

Reply

When this show occupies itself with the dealings of making a show or running a network, I'm enthralled. When they focus on the relationship between Matt and Harriet, perhaps the least interesting coupling currently on tv, they lose me. I enjoyed Jordan's subplot last night, but mostly the episode left me cold. I zoned out somewhere in that scene where the reporter is interviewing Harriet about being a Christian.

The show has other little flaws, such as the sketches being painfully unfunny and Sorkin's dialogue often coming too close to intellectual masturbation, but if the romance angle is going to be a focus, it needs to be fixed.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the show. It's just not God's gift to television or anything like that.

Reply

fools. People are expecting comedy? Jeeze. You are picking the wrong moments for the funny. And the Bear said Roar!
Now that is funny.

How are you different from your mother?
In as less ways as possible.

It's a drama show not a comedy. Its practically Sports Night reborn. Samuel Clemens is a writer yes? was he influential? Yes. So what's the difference if that medium is now tv? Sam Clemens used to entertain as well as inform through touring lecture halls.

There's nothing wrong with taking things seriously.

Reply

I don't like to say I told you so but ... this show is going to be cancelled and all the Heroes haters on the editorial staff here (keith!) are going to be eating crow ... large platefuls of it.

Reply

I think Sorkin should look to Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's Extras for inspiration, and see that:

- the show within the show does not have to be good to be interesting.
- characters can be severely flawed; they don't necessarily have to be even competent.
- a show can be intelligent without having all the highbrow cultural references.

Reply