Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

[Brillig]

Watch. This. Show.

Aaron Sorkin may be a occasionally recovering addict, but the man writes like no one else on television. There are some seriously high expectations for this show, and after watching the pilot, I think this one delivers, the only problem being that like Sports Night, it may just be too smart for the audience. Apparently it lost out to the CSI:Miami premiere (for the love of whatever, aren't Americans tired of that formula yet?), and I suppose Mondays aren't the best spot for a Sorkin high-wire act... still, the Sorkin-Schlamme combo grabs your attention just like the old days.

Here's hoping this one survives.

[Raiders Army]

Funny, cause I just watched it about half an hour ago. My wife thought it was kind of meh, but I liked it especially for a pilot episode. The dialogue was sharp and the acting was good. It also had a nice setup to bring Danny and Matt onboard.

[Celeval]

Very solid. We saw the pilot early on Netflix; and liked it last night as well - Mondays should be a good television night, with How I Met Your Mother, Heroes, and Studio 60.

[Joe]

I liked it as well. My only complaint is that as with many of Sorkin's characters, some were not distinctive at all and could be interchangable and a little boring.

[Brillig]

I thought about asking you which characters were undistinctive, but then I realized you'd respond with "that guy... and that other guy." I can't argue with that!

It's always a problem with a new show, but I think they did a pretty good job of delineating the main characters... there are some fuzzy edges around the peripheral players, but I think the core cast were well established.

[Bearcat729]

I liked it as well.

It actually made me realize what I had been missing the last few seasons of The West Wing.

[Maple Leafs]

I really enjoyed it. I'm not sold on the female lead (she's a network president at what, 35?) and some it was a little uneven, but the dialog was pretty good and the premise is interesting. I'll give it a shot for sure.

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I really enjoyed it. I'm not sold on the female lead (she's a network president at what, 35?) and some it was a little uneven, but the dialog was pretty good and the premise is interesting. I'll give it a shot for sure.

Actually, there was something written up on the Amanda Peet role - to quote my local TV columnist (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...DG2VL68U51.DTL)

For those who will quibble with young and beautiful Peet playing an idealistic and powerful network president, it's wise to remember that the TV industry is filled with women just like her in real life and the Jordan McDeere character is allegedly based on Jamie Tarses, who ran ABC and was younger then than Peet is now.

[Lathum]

We just thought it was whatever. If it doesn't get better in the next few episodes I'll probably dump it. I'm a fan of Amanda Peat (sp?) but I just didn't find her believable.

[kcchief19]

It met my high expectations. I've thought both Matt Perry and Brad Whitford are both underrated, and it's nice to see them in roles where they are not overshadowed by other parts of the ensemble.

I'm a little worried that the ensemble is a bit larger too large. SportsNight had six main characters, The West Wing essentially had six main leads plus typically about four supporting characters. This shows looks to be comparable in number. The difference is that The West Wing started with the six main characters and slowly eased background characters into the plot. Dule Hill and Stockard Channing weren't even in the first few episodes, and Janel Maloney didn't develop her character fully until really the second season.

As brilliant as I think Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme are, they rely way too much on the same ideas over and over again. The pilot of The West Wings and Studio 60 both shared similar plotlines, and the blast on Pat Robertson was very similar to a blast on Jerry Falwell delivered on SportsNight. I gave him a pass when he recycled lines and plots from SportsNight on The West Wing because I knew he was always behind and I figured he thought nobody saw SportsNight. I'm hoping future episodes are fresher, but I still loved it.

The TV critic for the KC Star was lukewarm on the show, but he did think Judd Hirsch should polish his mantle for his best guest starring actor for his on-air meltdown speech.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Very solid. We saw the pilot early on Netflix; and liked it last night as well - Mondays should be a good television night, with How I Met Your Mother, Heroes, and Studio 60.

You can see the first episode of Hero now at Yahoo
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/tv/top/heroes.../fall06/?d=503

[ISiddiqui]

I enjoyed the pilot very much. I thought the dialogue was pretty snappy and liked Perry and Whitford as the bad boy writer/director who come back. Stephen Weber as the network exec was an inspired choice, imo. And somehow, Peet works as a President of a network.

Looking forward to future episodes.

[scooter]

My wife and I really enjoyed it as well. I thought the chemistry between Perry and Whitford was excellent. I did have some trouble following who everyone was, but we did TIVO it so I'm going to go back and watch it again. Maybe next time I can figure out who's the boss (and who's the boss' boss, etc.).

I just appreciate that it's television that isn't reality, a competition, or a crime drama. We'll keep watching.

[MalcPow]

I enjoyed the first show as well, although really, couldn't they have at least used a different font for the credits and scene setups, it's quite literally exactly the same as the West Wing's. I also found the dialogue in some spots eerily similar to West Wing show's I've seen (never saw SportsNight), especially the opening scene about freedom of speech meaning that sometimes you'll be pissed off, this was basically a wholesale excerpt of the flag burning WW episode.

But again, I enjoyed it. I like the pace of a Sorkin show, and always find myself watching when one comes on. My only worry is that he's simply traded one soapbox for another, and that Studio 60 will just be new characters rehashing the same charted territory. But I'll be watching/buying dvd's either way.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I really enjoyed it. I'm not sold on the female lead (she's a network president at what, 35?) and some it was a little uneven, but the dialog was pretty good and the premise is interesting. I'll give it a shot for sure.

I hope that isn't the consensus, because I loved Peet's character. I thought she was immediately likable, and easy to root for. I figured she would be some kind of uber-bitch. I'm glad they went another direction because that has been over-done.

I loved the first episode. I didn't want it to end.

[Draft Dodger]

Much better than I thought it was going to be. I also was kind of meh on Peet's character and I was really looking forward to Sarah Paulson after just watching her in Deadwood, but she just seemed a bit off. Just the first episode though - once things get rolling, I think it's going to be very enjoyable.

[Ksyrup]

Much like that Friends knock-off The Class, I refuse to watch this show simply because I've been subjected to so many commercials for it that I hope it fails. Not that this is the kind of show I'd watch anyway, but I couldn't turn the channel quickly enough after DoND ended.

As far as the comment above about CSI, we still enjoy the original, although it's no longer "must see" every week. But the spin-offs (Miami and NY), we've never even considered watching. Miami I assume is because David Caruso is a dickhead who can't act, but I can only assume we don't watch the other just because it's overkill. But apparently not everyone thinks that way.

[wade moore]

I'm not reading this thread because I TiVO'd it and haven't watched. But just the fact that the guy who played Josh on West Wing is in it was enough for me to at least grab the pilot and check it out.

[Raiders Army]

I was confused a little as to Amanda Peet's character. She's the president of NBS? And who is the guy that she brought into her office to talk about hiring Danny and Matt?

[Brillig]

I don't know if Heroes will be that good a show or not... I'll have to wait and see, I suppose. That said, it has to be a better lead-in in terms of audience character than Deal or No Deal. The downside is if the show tanks, it won't be a lead-in at all.

Your Studio 60 character cheat sheet:

the corporates
Steven Weber, "Jack Rudolph", the big boss
Amanda Peet, "Jordan McDeere", NBS president, works for Jack

in charge at Studio 60
Bradley Whitford, "Danny Tripp"
Matthew Perry, "Matt Albie"

the talent at Studio 60
Sarah Paulson, "Harriet Hayes"
D.L. Hughley, "Simon Stiles"
Nathan Corddry, "Tom Jeter" <- practically MIA in the first episode

backstage at Studio 60
Timothy Busfield, "Cal Shanley", executive producer

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I was confused a little as to Amanda Peet's character. She's the president of NBS? And who is the guy that she brought into her office to talk about hiring Danny and Matt?

NBS is clearly based off of NBC. At NBC you have the Network President and a Chairman of the Network besides the owner of the network (GE at NBC; Ed Asner at NBS). So Amanda Peete is in-charge except that she's not.

Also Brillig: Timothy Busfield's character, Cal, is the show's director not executive producer.

[Passacaglia]

I didn't watch. Seeing Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet in the same commercial brought back horrible memories of The Whole Nine Yards.

[molson]

The hardest thing about writing fiction is making different characters' dialogue sound distinctive. Sorkin absolutely sucks at this, and I just can’t get past it in any of his shows, even though he’s otherwise talented.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I didn't watch. Seeing Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet in the same commercial brought back horrible memories of The Whole Nine Yards.

If you actually paid to see that movie then that's just some cinematic karma that you're going to have to live with for a long, long time...

I'm sorry.

[Toddzilla]

This just makes me miss Sports Night all the more....

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I didn't watch. Seeing Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet in the same commercial brought back horrible memories of The Whole Nine Yards.

That movie didn't qualify as bad enough to be good?

[cuervo72]

Amanda Peet naked on a staircase certainly wasn't bad...

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Amanda Peet naked on a staircase certainly wasn't bad...

I knew that's what you were going to say.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Much like that Friends knock-off The Class, I refuse to watch this show simply because I've been subjected to so many commercials for it that I hope it fails. Not that this is the kind of show I'd watch anyway, but I couldn't turn the channel quickly enough after Deal or No Deal ended.

... does ... not ... compute ...

Oh shite, there's another Howie Mandel commercial, mute it.

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by molson

The hardest thing about writing fiction is making different characters' dialogue sound distinctive. Sorkin absolutely sucks at this, and I just can’t get past it in any of his shows, even though he’s otherwise talented.

*shrug* I'm not seeing this. Although if Sorkin uses his favorite monk line again ("I don't know exactly how to please you, Lord, but I think the fact that I want to please you, pleases you") in this one he should be slapped with a carp.

I don't see the problem with the characters though. Maybe you should have your ears checked?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Celeval

... does ... not ... compute ...

Oh shite, there's another Howie Mandel commercial, mute it.

For me, the difference is that I was already watching DoND, so the commercials were more informational about when it would be on than trying to draw me in like the other two shows I mentioned. Plus, the DoND commercials were (or seemed to me) a lot shorter, because people know about the show already. The others were far more prone to lengthy (and repeated) promos about the show, with the same scenes being shown over and over (or, in the case of The Class, the same stupid spelling bee or playground commercials).

[Pyser]

from working in television, the first episode completely threw me off because they changed professional titles.

it took me FOREVER to figure out who perry and whitford were playing, in part because they kept referring to one as a "director".

i finally figured out that perry is the head writer of the show, and whitford is the "director"...which is really a show-runner in real television (think lorne michaels). a television director, at least for live shows, sits in the booth and calls the shots, which is what the guy who didnt pull the plug on the rant was, really...though he was more acting as a technical director, since he was working the switcher.

anyway, for a show that is supposed to be based on "realism", i couldnt figure out for the life of me why they changed real titles.

[Anthony]

how is that show "Heroes"?

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

how is that show "Heroes"?

Pretty Good. Goto Yahoo TV and watch the first episode now before it premeires next week.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Pyser

from working in television, the first episode completely threw me off because they changed professional titles.

it took me FOREVER to figure out who perry and whitford were playing, in part because they kept referring to one as a "director".

i finally figured out that perry is the head writer of the show, and whitford is the "director"...which is really a show-runner in real television (think lorne michaels). a television director, at least for live shows, sits in the booth and calls the shots, which is what the guy who didnt pull the plug on the rant was, really...though he was more acting as a technical director, since he was working the switcher.

anyway, for a show that is supposed to be based on "realism", i couldnt figure out for the life of me why they changed real titles.

What? Whitford was the "director" for Perry's movie (which Perry wrote). He was supposed to direct Perry's new movie, but couldn't because of he couldn't be bonded. They both were writers on the show originally, and they are now the Executive Producers.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

What? Whitford was the "director" for Perry's movie (which Perry wrote). He was supposed to direct Perry's new movie, but couldn't because of he couldn't be bonded. They both were writers on the show originally, and they are now the Executive Producers.

that makes infinitely more sense. i thought they wanted him to direct the studio 60 show, too. thanks.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

It met my high expectations. I've thought both Matt Perry and Brad Whitford are both underrated, and it's nice to see them in roles where they are not overshadowed by other parts of the ensemble.

I'm a little worried that the ensemble is a bit larger too large. SportsNight had six main characters, The West Wing essentially had six main leads plus typically about four supporting characters. This shows looks to be comparable in number. The difference is that The West Wing started with the six main characters and slowly eased background characters into the plot. Dule Hill and Stockard Channing weren't even in the first few episodes, and Janel Maloney didn't develop her character fully until really the second season.


The TV critic for the KC Star was lukewarm on the show, but he did think Judd Hirsch should polish his mantle for his best guest starring actor for his on-air meltdown speech.

this is a little bit of an unfair comparison (studio 60 to the west wing), because the way the West Wing started and was intended, and the way it ended up are totally different things....when that show came on the air, it was supposed to be about Rob Lowe and Moira Kelley's characters, with Jed Bartlett being an ancillary character along with all the others...after it was on a few weeks and everyone remembered how bad of an actress Moira Kelly is, and realized how well Martin Sheen was testing, they shifted gears on the fly and reworked the stories and characters to expand it into the awesome show that it was.

studio 60 is starting as an ensemble show from the beginning, so i think that is why you are seeing the peripheral characters being included right away, where in the WW they came on much later...why would bartlett need an assistant when he was only supposed to be a guy that only made incidental appearances?

[timmynausea]

I liked the West Wing, but I can't stand Matthew Perry, so I've avoided this one so far.

[Butter]

I think it's odd how the supposed main character of this sketch comedy show is apparently a hard core Christian selling a CD of spiritual music. Just a ham-handed way for Sorkin to browbeat us about religion ever few weeks, I guess.

Also, the whole Whitford's character being a recovering drug addict is way too much like the late John Spencer's role on West Wing.

I enjoyed the pilot overall, but I also felt Amanda Peet didn't fit into the President role very well. I'm willing to give it a few more weeks, just because I like most of the cast pretty well, esp. Perry, Whitford, Weber, and D.L. Hughley who I think could be extremely funny in this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I think it's odd how the supposed main character of this sketch comedy show is apparently a hard core Christian selling a CD of spiritual music. Just a ham-handed way for Sorkin to browbeat us about religion ever few weeks, I guess.

Actually it is supposed to be based on Kristen Chenowith (sp?) who Sorkin actually dated and then released a Christian CD and went on the 700 Club... which apparently led to a falling out between them.

[cschex]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Also, the whole Whitford's character being a recovering drug addict is way too much like the late John Spencer's role on West Wing.

I'm pretty certain that Whitford is supposed to be a stand-in for Sorkin and his well-publicized drug problems the last few years. This show is very much "auto-biographical" for Sorkin and Schlamme (and Perry as well, who had his own issues with pills, I believe).

[Butter]

Originally Posted by cschex

This show is very much "auto-biographical" for Sorkin and Schlamme (and Perry as well, who had his own issues with pills, I believe).

I'm coming to realize that a bit more after ISidd.'s post.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually it is supposed to be based on Kristen Chenowith (sp?) who Sorkin actually dated and then released a Christian CD and went on the 700 Club... which apparently led to a falling out between them.

I did not know that. interesting.

[BrianD]

I finally got a chance to watch this show and I quite liked it. There was some real substance to the story and the characters were interesting. I love the dialog on Sorkin shows as well. There is always such a nice mix of important discussion and attention paid to meaningless details. When Perry was telling the National Anthem story and the guy asked who the Dodgers were playing...perfect.

Someone upthread made the comment that all of the characters seemed the same and nobody was distinct. I actually think this is a good thing. Characters in TV so often become stereotypes or caricatures of their initial quirks that they cease to be like real people. Sorkin's characters may not be easily distinguishable by their lines, but they seem like real people.

Having Felicity Huffman in the pilot was a nice touch as well.

[BrianD]

dola,

I forgot to mention that I actually liked Peet in this role. I've never been a big fan of hers, but she had a nice combination of smarts and humor to make me believe she could be in that position.

Nice to see Matthew Perry get a chance to flex his acting muscles as well. He seems to have much ability that didn't get to shine through on Friends.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

I liked the West Wing, but I can't stand Matthew Perry, so I've avoided this one so far.

An hour after I said this, we ended up watching the pilot, which was rerun on Bravo last night. It was decent. Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet were much more tolerable than expected.

[Joe Canadian]

http://blogs.defaker.com/defaker/

NBC is apparently running a fake celbrity gossip site to deal with the in-show characters.

[Ksyrup]

FYI re the ratings...


NEW YORK -- The fall season opened Monday with two of the most anticipated series premieres of the year off to a so-so start.

NBC's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" and CBS' "The Class," both of which commanded substantial financial commitments from their respective networks and received generally positive reviews, didn't quite burst out of the gate but managed to put up competitive figures in their time slots.

The Aaron Sorkin-written "Studio 60" got a good lead-in with the season premiere of the hit game show "Deal or No Deal," which averaged 15.7 million viewers and a 5.0 rating/13 share among adults 18-49 in its two-hour season premiere -- about the same as last season's Monday performance.

"Studio 60," whose ensemble cast includes Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet and Bradley Whitford, couldn't keep up the pace at 10 p.m.. The drama set behind the scenes of a late-night sketch show delivered 13.4 million viewers and a 5.0/13 in adults, according to data released Tuesday by Nielsen Media Research.

While it was up from what "Medium" did last year in the time period, it also showed a significant erosion in its last half-hour, according to preliminary ratings released Tuesday: down 15% between 10-10:30 p.m. (14.6 million vs. 12.2 million) and down 16% in the demo (5.3/13 vs. 4.6/12).

[Ksyrup]

By the way, be sure to tune in to the October 16 show when Sting will be the musical guest, playing selections from his upcoming album of 16th Century Lute Songs!

[Maple Leafs]

I'm really interested in how (if?) they'll handle the actual comedy scenes. So far we've only seen bits of the "bad" comedy like the Bush opening and the cartoon, which was pretty devestatingly realistic. But at some point, if we're supposed to believe that some of these sketches are actually witty and clever and biting, we're going to have to see them, won't we? Can they pull that off? Or do they take the easy way out and just cut to shots of the audience laughing and cheering.