Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip - Season One (1 Viewer)

[Jon Martin]

I liked episode three more than the first two, which surprised me because, up until about five minutes in, I was prepared to give up on the show for good.

For me, the show seems too heavy handed. It needs to lighten up a lot. And not just in tone, but could they afford to get a few more lights on the set? It has to be one of the darkest shows on TV.

It does feel very overwritten at times (and I've liked Sorkin since SPORTS NIGHT).

But last nights seemed to be a bit restrained, so it worked.

And, every time Sara Paulson has a line, it seems to save the show

 

[Jason_V]

To be completely fair, David, "Lost" did premiere with a two hour "movie". "Studio 60" was one hour. Plus, "Lost" focuses on one character a week so we get to know a lot about that one person. That's why we knew more about the castaways after the third episode than we do about the "Studio 60" folks.

Danny, Matt, Jordan, Jack and Harriet are the reasons we tune in to watch. The ancillary characters will come with a bit of time. Just like "Sports Night".

 

[Patrick Sun]

I tune in mainly for Matt and Danny, with a pinch of Jordan. That's about it. The rest of the cast hasn't really given me a reason to hook into their character yet. If the Bachelor (lackluster harem this time around) is beating Studio 60, that can't bode well.

 

[MishaLauenstein]

Um, Felicity Huffman.

 

[pitchman]

I agree with you Jason, but not to get completely off track here... in actuality, the Lost premiere was an hour. Much like Heroes, Lost may have been conceived as a two-hour episode, but the network opted to run it as two-parter. If you go back and look at the first two hours, aside from wiggling his toes, eating an orange and sitting on the beach, Locke is pretty much of a non-factor. Rather, we see lots of Jack and Kate. We really don't learn much about Locke until episode 4 - Walkabout.

 

[Jason_V]

My mistake, then, pitchman. I could have sworn it was a two hour show run as a "movie" event.

In any event, you do need to set up the main characters first and then worry about everyone else. Danny, Matt, Jordan, Jack and Harriet are the main characters. Will the others get their moment to shine? You betcha. Will they ever become main characters? You never, ever know.

 

[TravisR]

Actually the toe wiggling isn't even until the flashback to the crash in Walkabout. The Locke character is now one of the leads on the show and he had about one scene of dialogue in the pilot.

I can't understand why anyone would think that the Studio 60 supporting characters are being neglected when there's been three episodes. I guess technically it's true since they're letting the audience get to to know the lead characters (since they're the lead characters) before taking time to focus on the supporting ones.

 

[David Williams]

And Sorkin's not even doing that... which, I guess, was more my point than the focus on supporting characters. I think he's lost his touch when it comes to crafting three dimensional human beings. Contrast Matt & Danny with Sam & Josh in their respective first 3 episodes. It's not even a close race on how well the characters are fleshed out. That's my biggest complaint with this show.

 

[pitchman]

Boy, I will have to check out the pilot again. I thought for sure there was a quick shot of Locke looking down at his feet right before Jack recruits him to help remove the large piece of metal that a man is trapped under.

In any event, although I enjoyed much of this week's show, I thought it dragged a bit compared the previous two episodes. It strikes me that the format is a bit constraining, compared to endless dramatic possibilities of say, The West Wing.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I really enjoyed last nights episode. So far i'm really getting buzzed over the chemistry between the characters, it really does feel like a group of people trying to put a show of that type together. Granted, I have no clue what really goes on behind the curtain at this type of comedy show but this show is what I would imagine it would be like.

IMO this third ep was on par with the second in terms of entertainment value and that's a very good thing, I hope it keeps it up at this level.

BTW, loved Harriet's Holly Hunter impression and that one guy's Tom Cruise impression lol.

 

[Chris]

I give up. The show is too heavy handed.

I don't mind that they have fun with Christian right groups, but there has to be some "funny" in it. I'm not a religious person (grew up Catholic, basically agnostic now). And hey, I -love- religious humor. Life of Brian? Brilliant. Monty Python's Holy Grail? South Park Spirit of Xmas? Brilliant. What made them brilliant? They were FUNNY.

The thing is about the bits done on this show is, they aren't funny. I see the response above that "hey, it's a drama first" But it's hard to have a believable drama about writing a comedy show when the comedy bits we see are boring or ridiculous. I saw the reference regarding the Rob Reiner bit as being a good comeback from "Crazy Christians" I don't know, it seemed as though all that sketch was was shock value to say "all religions are idiotic". And hey, you can do that, it can be done well (See Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" or several standup acts) But in this presentation it came off as just weird shock value without any punch line. Having the audience scream "Science Schmience" just made me think back to days as a catholic youth with the "Crucify Him" bit before easter. I'm not saying it was that irreverent, or that I was offended - I wasn't offended - I just thought it was pretty lazy and it wasn't very funny.

That's the thing. For the drama in this show to be believable, the comedy elements have to be funny. These guys are touted as a pair of award winning genious writers who would go on to do big things. But when all the sketches we see on the show aren't very funny, it makes me think: eh, how good are these guys really?

Someone nailed it with the 30 Rock post. I'd take a great number of sketch writers to write irreverent religious parodies that would be funny. Hell, I kept waiting for someone to say "why don't we do something like Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" " At least that sketch was FUNNY, and it drove home the point.

The point that the sketches in this show drives home is very blunt, and it's not nearly as sly, witty and funny. There isn't a real "laugh" in any of them. Some of the snippets of sketches that they showed - like a takeoff of Nicholas Cage - seemed to make me wonder what was wrong with the Periphial Vision man sketch from show #1 that was killed, or what it is that makes a Nicholas Cage talkshow sketch so relevent and funny..

Look, I know Ron and others see the danger this thread could become a relgioius debate. It's really not about that. IT's that the show strains believability to me too far. If I want to believe the drama, the behind the scenes show, then what they show me of the show has to make me believe the characters are who they say they are. They market "Studio 60" as the premier comedy program and the characters as the best writers, period. So, let's see something knock down funny. Just once.

I will probably leave this on the TiVO, but if the show continues to move down this track, in which what you see as the "show in the show" is not funny, then it takes me out of the show together. Because at that point, you simply cannot suspend disbelief enough to give credit to the characters for a talent that they are purported to have but don't.

 

[Ken Chan]

Best episode of the three so far.

More like "all fundamentalist versions of mainstream religions and Tom Cruise/Scientology are idiotic".

The show within a show is not that important to me. I am more interested in the "real" characters. The really funny bits for me were Holly Hunter and Jordan sheepishly putting down the drink. Part of that is because funny is not just writing, it's also the delivery. Plus it's more difficult to gauge how a sketch is from a snippet in a montage, because there's no setup.

It also helps that I agree with what Sorkin is saying about television, including in-jokes like you can't write every show by yourself.

 

[Carl Miller]

This is a dumb question, and I confess I haven't read this entire thread so if the answer is here, my apologies:

What job does the guy from Wings have in this show?

 

[Chris]

Which one? The one who played the reporter is now the camera and booth operator; of the main characters, I believe you are thinking of the "Studio 60" show director.

 

[Nicholas Vargo]

Carl, Steven Weber plays the station president.

I have to be honest, "Studio 60" is my favorite new show this fall. I'm digging it so much that it seems to me that it all fits together and everyone plays off off each other so well. The performances are lively and the show is a delight to watch.

Although there have only been three episodes so far, I'm convinced that the show will continue to stay up where it is already. It feels good to know that there is something good to watch on Monday nights now that is highly addictive.

 

[ScottH]

This might be my favorite show right now...but I do agree it might be a good idea to not show so much of the sketches...they're not funny at all.

 

[Craig S]

That can't be right. Peet plays the network president, and Weber is her boss. He's gotta be some corporate VP in charge of entertainment or something.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

He's the equivilant of Zucker for NBC. Peet is Reilly, by comparison.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Haven't watched this week's episode. Will tune into my
PVR later today.

Sad to report that Studio 60 is failing in the ratings....

Read about it here

 

[TravisR]

I'm bummed by that but not surprised. Hopefully NBC will want to preserve their relationship with Sorkin and at least give them the entire season (and a chance to grab more viewers) before cancelling it.