Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip

[keith crime 8]

I think it was the "always work" thing. Also, I think she was "new in town."

i can buy the work thing - but there's no way you become president of a network from out of town - maybe New York but that's still a strecth

[DerekTah 0]

i can buy the work thing - but there's no way you become president of a network from out of town - maybe New York but that's still a strecth

Hey according to the show, they were going to hire a black comic because J.L. Hughly thought they could use some black writers and was willing to go to a comedy club without ever hearing the comic's act before. And then hired the first black comic that didn't do sterotypical stuff (even though he was bad.)Maybe they wanted a female "Head of Programming" were in New York at the time and just hired the first woman in New York they saw in the office.

[hank213 1,823]

i can buy the work thing - but there's no way you become president of a network from out of town - maybe New York but that's still a strecth

yeah because tv is big on "promoting from within." (sw) For all we know about her she could've been running cartoon network or CNN in Atlanta prior to this. I think the most logical is the one you suggest, she came from New York for this gig, but most likely from another network. Furthermore, being new to the network she wouldn't have any friends at that network, maybe that's what she meant she was looking for.

[runthemover 39]

Hey according to the show, they were going to hire a black comic because D.L. Hughly thought they could use some black writers and was willing to go to a comedy club without ever hearing the comic's act before. And then hired the first black comic that didn't do sterotypical stuff (even though he was bad.)Maybe they wanted a female "Head of Programming" were in New York at the time and just hired the first woman in New York they saw in the office.

I think your post is serious, although parts of it makes me wonder if you made it in jest. I will give a serious response.he was bad as a standup performer not as a writer. they hired him because of his writing talent and because he had a different perspective.regarding amanda peet, do you remember the guy reading off her accomplishments in the pilot?

[DerekTah 0]

I think your post is serious, although parts of it makes me wonder if you made it in jest. I will give a serious response.he was bad as a standup performer not as a writer. they hired him because of his writing talent and because he had a different perspective.regarding amanda peet, do you remember the guy reading off her accomplishments in the pilot?

They never saw him as a writer just as a standup. I really have a problem with the fact that they were ready to hire someone they never saw or heard before that day (I mean honestly are there some actual funny black comedians that are not sterotypical and could be used for writers). And that doesn't include the "remember Boys in the Hood, well my character used to be Trey" speech)Regarding Amanda Peet. I don't like the way her character is getting jerked around by the writing. One moment shes a high power network executive who can hold her own well (the pilot episode and last week when she refused to bid on a reality show), the next she a very stupid character who can't carry a one sentence conversation (and I'm talking before she got really drunk at the party).

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

I liked Monday's show

[runthemover 39]

They never saw him as a writer just as a standup. I really have a problem with the fact that they were ready to hire someone they never saw or heard before that day (I mean honestly are there some actual funny black comedians that are not sterotypical and could be used for writers). And that doesn't include the "remember Boys in the Hood, well my character used to be Trey" speech)

by seeing his act they saw how he wrote. the problem with his act was not the writing. it was how he performed. that's why they hired him as a writer not a on screen talent. a lot of writers come from a standup background or at least attempt standup before becoming writers (see Larry David, BJ Novak among many others). I honestly don't understand how you don't see the connection.

[DerekTah 0]

by seeing his act they saw how he wrote. the problem with his act was not the writing. it was how he performed. that's why they hired him as a writer not a on screen talent. a lot of writers come from a standup background or at least attempt standup before becoming writers (see Larry David, BJ Novak among many others). I honestly don't understand how you don't see the connection.

Yes, but most writers also end up getting some credentals doing stand up. I bet Larry David was doing very confortably as a standup before he was given a gig as a writer (maybe not a star, but at the point where he was confortable doing his rountine). I doubt it was "well looks like your first time and you have ok ideas, well your now a writer".I also belief most shows would probably hire based on some reputation. The big problem is that they were intending to hire someone (the first comedian) that neither had seen or heard before.Ok, I don't know the industry. Are there story of first time comedians bombing and then instantly becoming a writer.

[BuffDan 0]

Regarding Amanda Peet. I don't like the way her character is getting jerked around by the writing. One moment shes a high power network executive who can hold her own well (the pilot episode and last week when she refused to bid on a reality show), the next she a very stupid character who can't carry a one sentence conversation (and I'm talking before she got really drunk at the party).

I think the point is she is supremely confident in her professional work, and supremely not in her personal life, which there is no contradiction in, and in fact makes for an intersting, multi dimensional character. It is very much like the character Dana on Sports Night (in fact most of what Aaron Sorkin does is a lot like what he did in the past, he plaigerizes himself non-stop, the good thing being that every time its pretty good writing). I will agree with the above posters that the sketches themselves have been pretty darn bad, though in the universe of the show they are considered funny, but I can live with that, since the rest of the show is excellent, IMHO. I like the fact that, like in Sports Night, you have a bunch of people who are (supposed to be) incredibly good at what they do, incredibly intelligent, and take incredible pride in what they do, even though it's "only" comedy, much like Sports Night was only sports.Anyways, I consider Sorkin to be the best writer I have ever come across, period (not just best TV/movie writer) and I had high expectations for this show, but for the most part, it has met them. I only hope it has a chance to last more than the 2 seasons that Sports Night did (though maybe the 7 seasons that West Wing did would be a bit much, especially if Sorkin leaves like he did there).

[hank213 1,823]

I read an article earlier this week, I believe it was in Slate, that mentioned how painfully unfunny the sketches in the show were. The article also went on to mention how the audience has dramatically decreased (by something like 30%) since the premier. The hope came late in the article where it was mentioned that Mark McKinney (kids in the hall, SNL) has been hired to write the sketches. The author mentioned that it was unclear when the McKinney sketches would appear in the show, but hopefully it will be soon or the show probably won't make it, and that would be a shame.I think BuffDan is spot-on in his assessment of Peet's character.

I think the point is she is supremely confident in her professional work, and supremely not in her personal life, which there is no contradiction in, and in fact makes for an intersting, multi dimensional character. It is very much like the character Dana on Sports Night

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html

[chester97 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html

crap. you could see it coming, but crap anyways. oh well, always have my west wing dvd's.

[hank213 1,823]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html

Sorkin and friends will argue that NBC has done something wrong, or that the audience isn't smart enough. Alas, in this case, neither is true. 'Studio 60'—as I wrote on August 7th after viewing the pilot—is just a bad show. There's nothing wrong with the acting, directing, or dialogue writing. But the premise is faulty. No one cares whether a bunch of over caffeinated, well off yuppies, some with expensive drug habits, put on a weekly comedy sketch show from Los Angeles.

I would argue that the author of the article isn't smart enough. He misunderstands the whole point of the program. He misses that it's a commentary on why and how all these soulless, moronic, pandering pieces of crap get on the air and one group trying to rectify this sad state of affairs. Alas, it seems as if Studio 60 will fall victim to the same obscene hackery that the show laments.

[Dirtydutch 8]

I love this show. I don't even know if it aired tonight, I'll try to download later, but when they do pull the plug, it's going to devastate me.

[runthemover 39]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html

too bad. I wanted to see where the show was going. the guy writing the article is very stupid. all he wanted to get across was how smart he is. he said the show was bad a couple months ago and now that it is being cancelled he is proven correct. congrats. he further proves himself to be an idiot by saying they will fill the timeslot with a gameshow. anyone with a brain can tell you game shows don't come on at 10 o'clock.if only I had looked at the link that said "foxnews" I would have saved myself a total waste of time.

I love this show. I don't even know if it aired tonight, I'll try to download later, but when they do pull the plug, it's going to devastate me.

didn't show this week.

[DerekTah 0]

I would argue that the author of the article isn't smart enough. He misunderstands the whole point of the program. He misses that it's a commentary on why and how all these soulless, moronic, pandering pieces of crap get on the air and one group trying to rectify this sad state of affairs. Alas, it seems as if Studio 60 will fall victim to the same obscene hackery that the show laments.

There are just too many people who refuse to be chanlenged by such political and social sketches such as "pimp my trike" and "The Nicholas Cage show", not to mention "science scmience".I'm sorry but if your going to call out TV for being soulless, moronic, and pandering crap. Then you have to do a show that actually better then the soulless, moronic, pandering crap. Maybe if the show got back to an idea of "behind the scenes of a sketch comedy show" rather than "the baseball that broke his heart" things may get interesting.

[ajs510 122]

So I guess this will go down in history as the first Sorkin project that didn't involve Josh Malina. I was waiting for him to turn up in a guest spot or something, keep the streak going. I'm really not surprised by the cancellation, this show must be costing NBC a fortune.

[chester97 0]

There are just too many people who refuse to be chanlenged by such political and social sketches such as "pimp my trike" and "The Nicholas Cage show", not to mention "science scmience".I'm sorry but if your going to call out TV for being soulless, moronic, and pandering crap. Then you have to do a show that actually better then the soulless, moronic, pandering crap. Maybe if the show got back to an idea of "behind the scenes of a sketch comedy show" rather than "the baseball that broke his heart" things may get interesting.

so you haven't watched the show, at all, is what you're saying basically.

[DerekTah 0]

so you haven't watched the show, at all, is what you're saying basically.

It seem to be what your saying, which part of what I mentioned is something that didn't occur on the show?

[hank213 1,823]

There are just too many people who refuse to be chanlenged by such political and social sketches such as "pimp my trike" and "The Nicholas Cage show", not to mention "science scmience".I'm sorry but if your going to call out TV for being soulless, moronic, and pandering crap. Then you have to do a show that actually better then the soulless, moronic, pandering crap. Maybe if the show got back to an idea of "behind the scenes of a sketch comedy show" rather than "the baseball that broke his heart" things may get interesting.

It's an insider show. I already said in a previous post that the sketches were weak but was expecting improvement due to McKinney coming on board. If you saw this show as moronic or pandering in anyway then you have completely missed the point of the show. And by the examples you presented you have so I'll give you a hint: IT'S NOT A SKETCH COMEDY. That is the danger of doing a show with subtlety, people accustomed to being hit over the head with plot devices aren't used to thinking about a show in order to understand it.

[keith crime 8]

It's an insider show. I already said in a previous post that the sketches were weak but was expecting improvement due to McKinney coming on board. If you saw this show as moronic or pandering in anyway then you have completely missed the point of the show. And by the examples you presented you have so I'll give you a hint: IT'S NOT A SKETCH COMEDY. That is the danger of doing a show with subtlety, people accustomed to being hit over the head with plot devices aren't used to thinking about a show in order to understand it.

I agree if the point were to write a sketch show then it would be a sketch showalthough i will admit that if we were to take MP's character to be the genius he is presented as the sketch's might have been tighter - it's an easy trap to fall into portraying genius creativity is difficult since you have to write that too - it would be like making a movie about a fictional dylan or lennon and being forced to write songs their equal - it's nearly impossible - so i'm willing to give the show a pass on that level i'll miss it i liked the material and the characters - although Sorkin continuing to try to work within the confines of a network seems to be masochism at this point

[DerekTah 0]

It's an insider show. I already said in a previous post that the sketches were weak but was expecting improvement due to McKinney coming on board. If you saw this show as moronic or pandering in anyway then you have completely missed the point of the show. And by the examples you presented you have so I'll give you a hint: IT'S NOT A SKETCH COMEDY. That is the danger of doing a show with subtlety, people accustomed to being hit over the head with plot devices aren't used to thinking about a show in order to understand it.

Yes Its not a sketch comedy show, right now the show is about a writer and the love of his life. Good stuff, the show has very well writen dialog and typically has one moment that is better than alot of stuff on TV.Bad stuff, there is no drama to this TV show. I don't care about the love story, I don't care about the show or the network. And you want pandering "Who's on First? We live in the midwest son where we never hear about this what do you call it "comedy" stuff" or "I'm was Trey from Boys in the Hood and now I have to take everyone I can out of the street", that is pandering. Ya, lots of subtlety there.Please name the subtlety because last weeks episode was as unsubtle as one can get.

[Loismustdie 0]

Freakin bullshit. NBC blows.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Freakin bullshit. NBC blows.

I thought you left

[hank213 1,823]

Yes Its not a sketch comedy show, right now the show is about a writer and the love of his life. Good stuff, the show has very well writen dialog and typically has one moment that is better than alot of stuff on TV.Bad stuff, there is no drama to this TV show. I don't care about the love story, I don't care about the show or the network. And you want pandering "Who's on First? We live in the midwest son where we never hear about this what do you call it "comedy" stuff" or "I'm was Trey from Boys in the Hood and now I have to take everyone I can out of the street", that is pandering. Ya, lots of subtlety there.Please name the subtlety because last weeks episode was as unsubtle as one can get.

The subtlety was not about the "we live in the midwest." The point of that story was the fact that the guy on the show comes from a family that is the complete opposite of his personality. He is a comedian that craves approval of, or at least some acknowledgement of his success from, his father. But, he is living in the shadow of a brother that is fighting in Afghanistan. The father, being a rather gruff and extremely practical sort always asks his son if he needs some money, what the son comes to realize at the end of the episode is that the father asking that really means "I love you son."The point of the "trey story" was not the "I have to take everyone with me." It was a set up. It sets up the fact that sometimes in life the seemingly miniscule decisions or setbacks can lead to amazing opportunity. Yes his character feels a responsibility to his race, but the point comes later, after the comedian bombs because he is a writer not a stand up comedian. MP's character recognizes the fact that his writing was smart so even though he bombed on stage and was ready to give up his dream, he was given an amazing opportunity to develop his real talent: solid, smart writing. Like I said, this show isn't going to spoon feed you understanding, you have to actually think[/b] about the subtext and put two seemingly unrelated events together into a larger context. I can tell from your first line you are fixating on the things that really are just situational setting and character motivation, not necessarily the broader themes of the show.