Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

[JonInMiddleGA]

Overnight's for 18-49 had this coming in at 3.3, up ever-so-slightly from the 3.2 two weeks prior. Just FYI.

[Coop]

It looks like it's going to get a full season pickup

http://community.tvguide.com/forum.j...umID=700000049

[vex]

Awesome!

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I think this was the best episode yet, by a wide margin

"

... and I thought the last episode was the best yet when that aired... so two in a row!

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Coop

It looks like it's going to get a full season pickup

http://community.tvguide.com/forum.j...umID=700000049

Good! All they need to do now is move the show out of this horrible time slot... the ratings are never going to improve when it's up against CSI: Miami.

[Bee]

I agree with those that say this last episode was the best one so far. It's not the best show on TV but I am still enjoying it and hope it starts to pick up an audience.

[kcchief19]

I'll admit I'm surprised to hear so many glowing reviews from the last episode, but I'm glad to hear it -- my lack of enthusiasm for that episode doesn't diminish my hopes for the series, but I'm encouraged others liked -- I just want thing thing to get a shot at being around for a while.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think it's probably the worst idea to come along in mass media in the past, oh, 30 years.

-- it will be the end of 80% of all cable networks which in turn
-- will be the end of 80%+ of the shows I currently watch (and I don't watch all that many hours a week as it is)

That personal impact aside, the ultimate impact will be an increase in the cost to virtually every cable tv subscriber in the country.

Problem is, not enough people understand how it works to understand how it will end up that way. (Trust me, it took me a good two hours of painstakingly going through the process just to get my father to begin to understand it, and even still he has a hard time looking past "yeah, but I wouldn't have to pay that flat rate bill each month").

Those are exactly my feelings. I've tried to explain to people what it really means, but it's almost impossible. The argument that you should only have to pay for what you watch makes sense to them, and they don't understand the financial argument.

I tried to explain it to one of my coworkers how right now she's paying a few cents a month for things like Bravo, TNT, MTV/VH1 and whatnot, but under ala carte she would end up paying a few dollars a month for each channel -- if they survive. People just don't believe that's what will happen. They firmly believe they'll get all the channels they have now and it will be cheaper. ARGH!

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Those are exactly my feelings. I've tried to explain to people what it really means, but it's almost impossible. The argument that you should only have to pay for what you watch makes sense to them, and they don't understand the financial argument.

I tried to explain it to one of my coworkers how right now she's paying a few cents a month for things like Bravo, TNT, MTV/VH1 and whatnot, but under ala carte she would end up paying a few dollars a month for each channel -- if they survive. People just don't believe that's what will happen. They firmly believe they'll get all the channels they have now and it will be cheaper. ARGH!

I think I've had a number of conversations about this on here in the past.

[Easy Mac]

More Nate Corddry. He's been the most consistently funny so far.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Those are exactly my feelings. I've tried to explain to people what it really means, but it's almost impossible. The argument that you should only have to pay for what you watch makes sense to them, and they don't understand the financial argument.

I tried to explain it to one of my coworkers how right now she's paying a few cents a month for things like Bravo, TNT, MTV/VH1 and whatnot, but under ala carte she would end up paying a few dollars a month for each channel -- if they survive. People just don't believe that's what will happen. They firmly believe they'll get all the channels they have now and it will be cheaper. ARGH!

To echo dangarion, we had a thread about it a while back with some good stuff from JiMGA in it.

SI

[sterlingice]

I liked this episode fairly well. I think after the previous episode ("The Wrap Party"), the bar for quality has been raised quite a bit. What was awkward and uneven but accepted previously, there's a new standard. So that's why some of the cringiness from this episode started to annoy people. There's potential for the show and it needs to capitalize now- to the people who didn't like this one, put it up against the 2nd or 3rd episode and I think you'll see a world of difference.

This one had a very 80s/90s caper movie feel to it, for good or for ill. Unfortunately, that formula requires some characters to act stupid at points.

SI

[Barkeep49]

I think this epsiode was the worse one yet. It almost made we want to give up hope on the show.

[GrantDawg]

I just saw in this thread about the season pick-up and I'm excited. I almost didn't watch last week because of the cancellation demon hanging over the show. I'm glad it is getting a full season.

[wade moore]

No posts bout this weeks episode?

I liked it... Not the best, but it was good.

[spleen1015]

I stopped watching it. I need more time for games.

[gi]

Originally Posted by wade moore

No posts bout this weeks episode?

I liked it... Not the best, but it was good.

I enjoyed it because some characters developed, most notable was the CEO arse. I also enjoy John Goodman playing a fat, sweaty, hillbilly...which I guess is just himself.

[kcchief19]

Part II was much superior to Part I to me. A big part of it is that I prefer resolution, but I thought Part I was a bit too slow and too much exposition. Part II was more brisk, had some nice turns and was the best acting we've seen out of Steven Weber yet. John Goodman is almost always money in the bank.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by gi

I enjoyed it because some characters developed, most notable was the CEO arse. I also enjoy John Goodman playing a fat, sweaty, hillbilly...which I guess is just himself.

I prefer to think the real John Goodman is more like his character in The Big Lebowski.

[gi]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I prefer to think the real John Goodman is more like his character in The Big Lebowski.

I have to see that movie sober since I don't remember much of it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Part II was much superior to Part I to me. A big part of it is that I prefer resolution, but I thought Part I was a bit too slow and too much exposition. Part II was more brisk, had some nice turns and was the best acting we've seen out of Steven Weber yet. John Goodman is almost always money in the bank.

I just don't think they know what to do with Weber's character. He was horribly awkward for most of the episode and then had his redeeming moment.

SI

[sterlingice]

Oh, also, I finally got my Nielsen diary and it's for this week so I guess I'll be contributing a "vote" for Studio 60 in it.

SI

[Crapshoot]

I'm really liking the show tonight. Thoughts?

[Mr. Snappy]

Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in. I thought it was the best since the pilot.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Mr. Snappy

Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in. I thought it was the best since the pilot.

Yeah. Its like someone told Spelling to add some humor - I was laughing, a lot. All I know is that I'll follow whatever Matthew Perry does next.

[Celeval]

Not a bad ep.

[TazFTW]

Peet was looking very pregnant in this episode. Do I remember correctly that they were planning on incorporating her pregnancy in the show? Or will they give her character a break because she hates children?

[Fouts]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Peet was looking very pregnant in this episode. Do I remember correctly that they were planning on incorporating her pregnancy in the show? Or will they give her character a break because she hates children?

I keep getting the feeling that she isn't in this for the long run. Even before the talk of her being fired as head of NBS, I thought she would do this one season then go back to movies.

Great cast on this show. I really like the actress who plays Harriet.

[TazFTW]

I hope we see more of Mark McKinney's character. I also liked that Harriet couldn't tell a joke and the Deal or No Deal spoof.

[I. J. Reilly]

This show is really hitting its stride I think. It is definitely must see for me now. Hopefully the ratings agree and it stays around for a while.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

This show is really hitting its stride I think. It is definitely must see for me now. Hopefully the ratings agree and it stays around for a while.

Yeah, its improved a lot - its actually funny now, and that's a nice addition to an already good drama. Apparently, despite the low ratings, its hitting the high end demographics, so NBC is happy with it (Jon could probably tell us more about that).

[Ksyrup]

CRITICAL REVERSALS: TELEVISION

Critic loses giddiness for NBC's show `Studio 60'
By Maureen Ryan
Tribune television critic
Published November 26, 2006

Talk about a bait and switch.

Three viewings of the first hour of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," Aaron Sorkin's NBC series about the backstage drama at a sketch-comedy show, convinced me that it was the best pilot of the fall season.

The episode was a crackling thrill ride, and I take back none of my praise for it. I said in my Sept. 18 review that "in a fall TV season with no shortage of fine offerings, it's the only show that made me positively giddy with excitement. `Studio 60' is not just good, it has the potential to be a small-screen classic."

Well, every TV show out there is an ever-evolving beast, and some revision of that view is in order. OK, in "Studio 60's" case, a big revision. Scratch the giddiness, for one thing.

The problem is, the "Studio 60" pilot promised one thing -- meaty character-driven drama about flawed creative people working under enormous pressures -- and delivered another thing entirely. Namely, a platform for Sorkin's out-of-date culture-war screeds and a variety of lectures that we Midwesterners may be too unsophisticated to understand.

Forgive my bitterness. I had sky-high hopes for this series, which gave Matthew Perry a meaty dramatic role as writer Matt Albie -- at first. Then the series undercut his character's supposed comic genius by having him preside over sketches that are not only not funny ... they are embarrassingly, stunningly anti-funny.

Sorkin apparently couldn't care less -- or doesn't realize -- that his characters come off as pompous and clueless. That's because, beyond the first couple of episodes, he doesn't seem to be interested in his characters as people. He's using them as mouthpieces to settle his own personal scores and to take opposite sides of cultural debates that, in his hands, come off as clumsy and tin-eared.

Sleazy, shame-driven reality TV is bad? Wow. Thanks for having the guts to take that one on, Aaron -- years after the genre faded from the networks.

Amid the preaching, Sarah Paulson has tried to make her character, Harriet Hayes, a real person, but she's fighting a losing battle. Hayes, a devout Christian in Hollywood (shocker!), is routinely browbeaten for her beliefs, a "dramatic" gambit that is as tiresome as it is insulting. Who would really attack a co-worker for her beliefs every day? That's not just insufferably presumptuous, it's plain bad manners.

Network executive Jordan McDeere went from a refreshingly bold presence to someone who walked into a room of semi-strangers -- people who work for her, mind you -- and begged them to be her friend (and by the way, on what planet would the tabloids care about a TV executive's personal life?).

Steven Weber's capable of giving a sensational performance as icy network head Jack Rudolph, but so far he has been mostly reduced to sputtering at McDeere's flippant remarks. As for the potentially intriguing relationship between Albie and his creative partner, Danny Tripp, it has been a non-starter. What happened to Tripp's drug issues and to his complicated relationship with his best friend? Not much.

The worst of "Studio 60's" excesses -- jarringly condescending scenes about how the Hollywood blacklist was bad, about middle-age Midwesterners so sheltered that they hadn't heard of Abbott and Costello -- may be over. But the most-improved sketch comedy show on NBC is "30 Rock," which at this point shows more promise than Sorkin's series.

Still, Sorkin is capable of diverting, sparky dialogue, and "Studio 60" shows an occasional moment of emotional truth. One day, we may get an interesting program about the creative and personal dilemmas of McDeere, Albie, Hayes and Rudolph.

The question is, will anyone still care?

hxxp://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/chi-0611250242nov26,1,5450940.story?coll=chi-ent_tv-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[Draft Dodger]

I do like the show, but she's got a lot of good points (including the part about 30 Rock being much-improved). Sorkin's stuff is incredibly condescending and self-important. that worked for politics, not so much (IMO) with this.

[Butter]

I stopped watching after episode 4. I had 4-5 episodes sitting on the DVR and felt absolutely no need to continue with the show considering how horribly written all of the religious stuff is.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I do like the show, but she's got a lot of good points (including the part about 30 Rock being much-improved). Sorkin's stuff is incredibly condescending and self-important. that worked for politics, not so much (IMO) with this.

Eh - condescending is still better than crap (see Two and a Half Men or War at Home).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Apparently, despite the low ratings, its hitting the high end demographics, so NBC is happy with it (Jon could probably tell us more about that).

The income skew on the viewers it has managed to find does seem to be pretty good but to be honest, I think there's definitely some face-saving going on with NBC by hanging onto the show.

I believe the (largely unspoken) truth is that: a) they don't have anything better to replace it with; and b) they might as well get what they can out of it now, based on the above average income audience.

But "happy with it" honestly seems to me to be better described as "putting on the best face possible while confronted with adversity".

[scooter]

I really enjoy the show. I like the rapid-fire dialogue. I guess I'm not looking for soul-searching characters with deep problems and flaws. I want smart interaction between humorous characters. That's what I get with this show.

During last week's episode, where Matt pointed at Jordan's phone and it rang "on command", the reaction from Matt and Danny had me rolling around laughing. I had to back Tivo up to listen to it again.

I can see where the types of issues that they take on could rub people the wrong way though. It may ultimately be what dooms this show, but for right now, while it's still on the air, I will continue to watch and enjoy this show.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The income skew on the viewers it has managed to find does seem to be pretty good but to be honest, I think there's definitely some face-saving going on with NBC by hanging onto the show.

I believe the (largely unspoken) truth is that: a) they don't have anything better to replace it with; and b) they might as well get what they can out of it now, based on the above average income audience.

But "happy with it" honestly seems to me to be better described as "putting on the best face possible while confronted with adversity".

I'm curious - how much does income play a role in determining the role of demographics? To take an extreme example, I imagine a 5.0 share consisting entirely of 18-25 year old males who make over $100,000 is significantly preferable to a 10.0 share consisting of over 50, sub $40,000 audience. Nonetheless, is this something that strongly affects ad buys?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm curious - how much does income play a role in determining the role of demographics? To take an extreme example, I imagine a 5.0 share consisting entirely of 18-25 year old males who make over $100,000 is significantly preferable to a 10.0 share consisting of over 50, sub $40,000 audience. Nonetheless, is this something that strongly affects ad buys?

Depends pretty much entirely on what type of widget you're trying to sell.

Investment firms & luxury cars looooove the higher income demos.
Wal-Mart & McDonalds live in the middle incomes (and below, although that isn't discussed too much in polite company in my experience).

Where the higher incomes become more valuable to advertisers is that they are typically hard to reach, especially upper income men. There simply aren't that many programs that skew that way, and especially not many that pull a large audience. You can get to them scattered about other programs of course, but then it becomes a game of paying 10x for the total audience when 10% or less are actually viable potential customers.

For example, the product (premium branded grass seed/lawn products) I spent the most time buying for was targeted at middle to upper middle incomes, aged 25-54. That's the wheelhouse for the product. Younger tended to be less involved in their lawns, poorer bought lower-priced products, richer were less directly involved in brand decisions since they more often pay someone to do their yards, while older starts becoming less involved in their lawns for physical reasons as well as being more set in the brand loyalty after 30+ years of buying products already. So in our case, we didn't always penalize an program for having skewing higher income (by narrowing our parameters too strictly) but we certainly didn't give them "extra credit" in the form of paying more per viewer reached either. Basically, we didn't mind reaching them but we had no interest in paying extra to do so either.

But if I'm buying for, say, Merrill Lynch then it becomes a whole different game.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm curious - how much does income play a role in determining the role of demographics? To take an extreme example, I imagine a 5.0 share consisting entirely of 18-25 year old males who make over $100,000 is significantly preferable to a 10.0 share consisting of over 50, sub $40,000 audience. Nonetheless, is this something that strongly affects ad buys?

Jon can answer this better than I can, but for most if not all advertisers the overall share of a show doesn't matter at all. My association does four media buys a year, and for the most part our target audience is women age 35-54 with a household income more than $100,000. We don't care how many people overall watch a show we buy into, we only care how many people in that demo watch. We actually bought time in Studio 60 back in August locally because it was anticipated it would be a hit in our demo.

For the network, the concern is about how much money they can charge in relation to how much the show brings in. The West Wing is the classic example of that. TWW was a hit in its key demo even with its sliding ratings, but it was also an expensive show to make. If NBC could have cut the licensing and production cost of the show, I think it would still be on the air. But at some point, great demographics can't offset high production costs.

That's where Studio 60 is going to find trouble. It's an expensive show with a pricey cast and a pretty elaborate set. It's probably one of if not the highest priced new shows this year. They could probably save money be eventually shipping off Steven Weber or Amanda Peet (both of whom I would think are also suffering from Rob Lowe Syndrome of not enough screen time).

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Eh - condescending is still better than crap (see Two and a Half Men or War at Home).

agreed, which is why I watch it and not them

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

... but for most if not all advertisers the overall share of a show doesn't matter at all. ... We don't care how many people overall watch a show we buy into, we only care how many people in that demo watch.

Almost a complete ding,ding, ding observation right there.

The one exception that I can think of right off hand are occasions where an advertiser says (which isn't uncommon) "I want to be in the most watched 6pm news show in markets X,Y, and Z".

In those cases share does matter, since the client instruction isn't about total numbers, it's about largest number available in a given timeslot.

There's also the occasional direct instruction for what I consider "ego buys". Stuff like "What's the #1 show on TV right now? Whatever it is, that's the one I want my spot to run in".

Never mind whether the audience hits your target market or whether it's priced even remotely efficiently, sometimes clients let their egos overrule logic, reason, wisdom, or fiscal sense. ("sometimes" = "more often than the average person would expect")

[TazFTW]

Great episode. I hope it beats the repeat of CSI:Miami.

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Great episode. I hope it beats the repeat of CSI:Miami.

Guess not.

"Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" (households: 4.9/8, #8; adults 18-49: 3.0, #7).

"CSI: Miami" (households: 7.8/13, #3; adults 18-49: 3.7, #4).

[vex]

Best episode so far IMO.

[Neuqua]

Do they still have full episodes on nbc.com for people to catch up with?

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

Do they still have full episodes on nbc.com for people to catch up with?

yep, they get posted at 5am the day after airing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Guess not.

"Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" (adults 18-49: 3.0, #7).

If I'm not mistaken, or if final numbers didn't change signficantly from the overnights we usually talk about here, I believe that 3.0 would stand as the lowest rated episode of 60 to date.

If, as some here seem to be saying lately, the show has indeed improved then I'm reminded of the old saying about "not having a second chance to make a first impression"

[Peregrine]

I really enjoyed the Christmas episode, the New Orleans musical bit was excellent!

[Bee]

I thought that was by far the best episode yet.