# Report: Studio 60 Cancellaiton Imminent



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

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

Studio 60' Concellation | Standing Ovation for 'Bobby' | Regis Is King, as Usual

Studio 60 Cancellation Iminent

Here we go: despite receiving an order for three more episodes on Friday, the Aaron Sorkin NBC drama Studio 60 on Sunset Strip is about to be put out of its misery.

Cast members are already confiding in friends that the end is near. Its likely NBC will pull the plug shortly I am told by insiders.

Last week, Studio 60 had 7.7 million viewers. Compare that with competing "CSI: Miami," with 17.5 million. That gap cannot be closed.

But Studio 60 has trouble internally at NBC, forget its intramural rivals. According to ratings stats, the Saturday Night Live behind the scenes soap opera loses almost half the viewers delivered to it a few minutes earlier by another new show, Heroes, which has become a surprise cult hit.

On Monday, Heroes had 14.3 million viewers. The substantial drop off with 'Studio 60' is probably the last nail in its coffin. The order of the three extra episodes is considered by insiders to be a contractual move, and not one based on faith that they will ever be made or aired. The all important demo situation didnt help: 'Heroes' had 15 percent of viewers aged 18-49. Studio 60 had 8 percent. The notion that 'Studio 60' is a big draw for NBC among desirables is, sadly, blown on those stats.

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.

Even worse: no one cares whether or not the people from the Bartlett White House puts on a comedy show. Thats what 'Studio 60' is, essentially: the "West Wing" annual talent show. Theres so much earnestness involved in this endeavour, you start to think that nuclear war will be declared if the 'Studio 60' staff doesnt air some jokeusually one we dont hear anyway. The whole thing just feels weighted down and frankly, not entertaining.

There is one winner to come out of 'Studio 60,' however: Matthew Perry. In this show hes proven himself to be a star on his own separate from "Friends." His comedic timing and ability to ad lib, toss off lines, and give restrained physical reactions is what keeps 'Studio 60' even remotely interesting. We can only be hopeful that someone comes up with a great new show for him quicklybut a comedy thats funny, not a drama that isnt.

NBC will probably fill the lost 'Studio 60' timeslot with 'Deal-No Deal: The Next Generation,' or some such thing. So the losers here will be the audience, which is about to be pummelled by more reality and game shows. Its too bad because around the dial there are good new dramas. Despite its heavy thirtysomething feel, Brothers and Sisters is worth keeping if only for Sally Field, Ron Rifkin and Rachel Griffiths. (But there a mistake was made, too: killing off patriarch Tom Skerritt in the first episode.)

Oh well: I hope Regis is warming up the holiday edition of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Were ready!


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

I will miss it. Studio 60 had a pretty good show going. The writer of the article seems a little uppity. Wonder what shows he actually likes.


----------



## GameGuru (Dec 12, 2003)

I actually really enjoy Studio 60. So, Studio 60 gets canned but Jericho gets a full season?


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

That's a shame. Perhaps it would be better on cable.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

"Theres so much earnestness involved in this endeavour, you start to think that nuclear war will be declared if the 'Studio 60' staff doesnt air some jokeusually one we dont hear anyway. The whole thing just feels weighted down and frankly, not entertaining."

Can't disagree with that. I would be surprised if it survives.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

Another bonehead decision pending?

I deleted the Ray Liotta show unwatched, because what is the point in getting invested in a show that is going to be chopped so quickly? So Studio 60 isn't the best show on TV, but it's only been what, 6 weeks?? That is about the number of episodes I let pile up on the Tivo, because we like to do marathons, so we watched them all early this week. It's better than the vast majority of schlock the broadcast networks put out. Yeah, let's replace it with yet another game show, reality show or makeover show. 

Gee, I wonder why my favorite shows are on FX, the premium channels and the torrents from Britain. I guess my demographic is no longer desirable to the OTA guys.


----------



## USAFSSO (Aug 24, 2005)

Its not a great show, but still good. Like the speed of it, but that is in any of Sorkins show. They could do a slight re-tool, and make it a drama about making a comedy show. I think they still would get a good following if they bump it over to one of their other networks.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I agree with much of this essay, excepting the oft-made criticism that "nobody cares about the behind-the-scenes making of a TV show". That's bunk. Paraphrasing film critic Roger Ebert's first rule of reviewing movies, the important thing is not what the show is about, it is how it is about it. Why would anyone care about a vampire slayer? About a bunch of people marooned on an island? It's not the subject matter; it's what you do with it. And as the author of this piece observes, Studio 60 is so painfully earnest and weighty it's just frequently no fun. 

Another problem: except for Matt, Danny, and possibly Jordan and Harriett, who cares about any of these people? I just watched last week's episode "The Wrap Party", and was astonished at how much time we had to spend with the actor -- such a memorable character that I don't even know his name -- and his parents, watching them work out their family dynamic while the actor recited the history of show business as they toured the studio. There's a fairly large cast here, somewhat by necessity, but this doesn't mean they all have to have equal time. The supporting characters and their actors just can't carry it. 

Note that overall I am a fan of the show, despite these obvious flaws. Aaron Sorkin is obviously gifted, and if he's not too much of an egomaniac to take feedback on these first several episodes to heart, I think he could make Studio 60 into a genuinely terrific show. But it does appear that he won't get the chance.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

GRRRRRRRRR! We finally just sat down to watch our backlog of these this weekend and really enjoyed it - so of course it's going to be cancelled.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Mr. Soze said:


> Another bonehead decision pending?


Why is it a bonehead decision to stop spending a ton of money (I have to beleve Studio 60 is one of the network's most expensive shows) on a show that is hemorrhaging viewers? The special problem here is, I think, much like high-profile movie flops in today's marketplace. If a big movie doesn't draw crowds in its first weekend, it is widely reported, and the presumptive "failure" of the movie then keeps crowds away. Studio 60 is probably the most written-about new show, and every single story on it nowadays is about its ratings struggles, frequently accompanied by commentary such as that in the Fox News piece cited here.

True or not, the show has been labeled a loser, and I can't see how it can recover from that.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> Why is it a bonehead decision to stop spending a ton of money (I have to beleve Studio 60 is one of the network's most expensive shows) on a show that is hemorrhaging viewers? The special problem here is, I think, much like high-profile movie flops in today's marketplace. If a big movie doesn't draw crowds in its first weekend, it is widely reported, and the presumptive "failure" of the movie then keeps crowds away. Studio 60 is probably the most written-about new show, and every single story on it nowadays is about its ratings struggles, frequently accompanied by commentary such as that in the Fox News piece cited here.
> 
> True or not, the show has been labeled a loser, and I can't see how it can recover from that.


Boneheaded because I don't like it! Duh!  It's probably very expensive to make, but it's another nail in the "network dramas that appeal to me" coffin. That's fine, I will get my entertainment elsewhere, like I said. But then the networks shouldn't whine about losing viewers like me.

I can't wait for a true PPV IPTV model to come about.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Mr. Soze said:


> Another bonehead decision pending?
> 
> I deleted the Ray Liotta show unwatched, because what is the point in getting invested in a show that is going to be chopped so quickly? So Studio 60 isn't the best show on TV, but it's only been what, 6 weeks?? That is about the number of episodes I let pile up on the Tivo, because we like to do marathons, so we watched them all early this week. It's better than the vast majority of schlock the broadcast networks put out. Yeah, let's replace it with yet another game show, reality show or makeover show.
> 
> Gee, I wonder why my favorite shows are on FX, the premium channels and the torrents from Britain. I guess my demographic is no longer desirable to the OTA guys.


I used to think like you, until I came to the decision that it's still worth the time if I enjoy watching the show - no matter if it gets canceled or not.


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

I like the show, but probably won't miss it terribly. I did think it was a good show though, and if the threads about it here are any indication of the viewers, then their numbers are a little off. Don't they know to check with this forum before cancelling shows? ;0)

Not a surprising move though considering the article I just read in EW about them cutting back on expensive shows (sitcoms and dramas) and leaning toward airing more reality and game shows 'cuz they're cheaper to make (apparently NBC is having major budget issues).


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

P.S. If 30-Rock makes it after this one's been cancelled...ugh, I can't even think about it.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

So sad. I just saw this story.

Oh well. The networks suck at tv anyways. Can't really blame them.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

It's stupid because the idea that whatever else they plug into that slot is goinng to "catch up" to CSI is absurd. I believe that history has shown us pretty clearly that juggernaut shows rarely get beat by something new. Rather, they begin to deteriorate/get old and THEN the pack catches up to them. The trick is to have something ready when the deterioration starts. Furthermore, pairing Studio 60 with Heroes is lousy programming. What is it about the two shows that suggests that they might share an audience? There's virtually NO similarity, in style or tone, between them.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

AJRitz said:


> It's stupid because the idea that whatever else they plug into that slot is goinng to "catch up" to CSI is absurd. I believe that history has shown us pretty clearly that juggernaut shows rarely get beat by something new. Rather, they begin to deteriorate/get old and THEN the pack catches up to them. The trick is to have something ready when the deterioration starts. Furthermore, pairing Studio 60 with Heroes is lousy programming. What is it about the two shows that suggests that they might share an audience? There's virtually NO similarity, in style or tone, between them.


Amen to all of that!!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

damn it, i love this show!

why do they can all the good shows??? This, Smith.. and waiting for more to come


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> It's stupid because the idea that whatever else they plug into that slot is goinng to "catch up" to CSI is absurd. I believe that history has shown us pretty clearly that juggernaut shows rarely get beat by something new. Rather, they begin to deteriorate/get old and THEN the pack catches up to them. The trick is to have something ready when the deterioration starts. Furthermore, pairing Studio 60 with Heroes is lousy programming. What is it about the two shows that suggests that they might share an audience? There's virtually NO similarity, in style or tone, between them.


Agreed.

I also think the author of the piece is a little off his rocker in his analysis of why the show failed. I really enjoyed it. It is a drama about a comedy - I don't expect it to be funny all the time. And yeah, I do care about the subject, as much as a person can care about a fictional tv show. It entertained me, and that's all I care about.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

Homicide was a very good show that NBC stuck with, even though it was never a ratings blockbuster. But that was the old NBC, and the press didn't write articles about how terrible the ratings were, just how great the show was. 

NBC needs to grow a pair.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Burn in Hell NBC!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I'll miss this one, just because I love Sorkin dialog and pacing.

I never really understand the common criticisms of this show. First, that the dialog is pretentious and talks down to you: I don't get it. How does it talk down to you? I hear this all the time but there're never any examples of it given. I don't feel that way. Maybe I'm too stupid to realize they're talking down to me 

Second, the idea that everyone on the show it so earnest about what is only a comedy show. Well, heck, it's their jobs, and their careers, and they're on TV _live_ in front of millions of people for ninety minutes every week. I would imagine they would take that pretty seriously and worry and fret about it, even if it is "just a comedy show". Wouldn't you? Sure, it's not running the White House (or the U.N. ) but it's still critically important to _them_! Why wouldn't they treat it seriously? Why wouldn't we believe that they would?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

It's not gone YET! Y'all are talking about it like it's already gone!

I still think NBC will try some resuscitation before canceling it, by moving it to another timeslot. It'd be monumentally stupid of NBC not to try and maximize their expenditure in the series, particularly since they'd be out a significant amount of money for cutting it early. It's getting OK ratings, particularly in a fairly lucrative demo, so it's not like it's totally tanking... and because it's getting OK ratings, they're still making money off the series in terms of advertisers.

Besides, this is just one report... one from Fox News, who I trust about as much as I trust any people who perpetually are misleading or outright lying.


----------



## Animgif (Jan 4, 2002)

This makes me sad


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

:down:

This bugs me. The show has so much promise, it's got solid writing and good acting, and it's funny without being stupid. And it's having problems.

Meanwhile, braindead shows like Jericho get picked up for a full season. 

Has this world gone mad?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> It's stupid because the idea that whatever else they plug into that slot is goinng to "catch up" to CSI is absurd.


I agree with everything else you said, but this part is irrelevant. It's not about putting something in the slot that will "catch up" with CSI: Miami. It's about maximizing profits/minimizing losses. If CSI is going to continue to dominate that timeslot, then NBC can't afford to keep a show there that is as expensive as S60 and draws so few viewers. They'll replace it with something that costs less and therefore is more in line with that number of viewers. In addition, I'm sure NBC guaranteed the advertisers a certain number of viewers when they signed up for ads during this show, and if they're not meeting that number, they'll have to refund money to the advertisers, which the networks don't like doing.

Hopefully they'll try S60 out in another timeslot where there isn't such a dominant show, but it's rare that a show switches timeslots and gains viewers. I love the show and will watch to the end, but it's not looking promising.


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

Yea I caught this news a few minutes ago on Freerepublic. Of course most of them are cheering it's demise so I made a nice post in defense of the show to my fellow freepers who apparently watched the first 20 minutes of the pilot then bailed on the show.

Anyway this is bad news not only for us but for NBC. Have you seen the ratings lately, not on any show but on the networks. ABC is KILLING NBC in ratings. CBS is killing NBC for crying out loud. CBS. Ten years ago that network couldn't buy a good show from the television script thrift store. 

NBC killing a smart show (albeit not terribly exciting) and probably replacing it with some reality or game show is basically just what the 53 second tirade on the pilot was about.

There are exactly two television shows I watch on NBC. Heroes and Studio 60. Both are new shows. If Studio 60 goes (which sounds like it will), I'll probably just reschedule my Heroes watching to the Friday replay on Sci-Fi channel before BSG.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> Besides, this is just one report... one from Fox News, who I trust about as much as I trust any people who perpetually are misleading or outright lying.


What is it about "Fair and Balanced" that you don't trust?


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

I hope not. Its a very good show. I loved the line when Jordon (I think), said something like, "If they're offended, teach them to just turn the channel!" :up:

If NBC cancels Studio 60, :down:


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> It's stupid because the idea that whatever else they plug into that slot is goinng to "catch up" to CSI is absurd. I believe that history has shown us pretty clearly that juggernaut shows rarely get beat by something new. Rather, they begin to deteriorate/get old and THEN the pack catches up to them. The trick is to have something ready when the deterioration starts. Furthermore, pairing Studio 60 with Heroes is lousy programming. What is it about the two shows that suggests that they might share an audience? There's virtually NO similarity, in style or tone, between them.


They had Medium in that slot last year, and it got around 10 million viewers a night. I think that's the timeslot threshold for not cancelling. I actually think Medium would do slightly better in that slot this year given Heroes' ratings and that the shows seem fairly compatible from a subject matter perspective.

Add in the fact that ~33% of next year's schedule is allotted to gameshows (8PM), and you don't have much room for struggling shows.

EDIT: BTW, I'm one of those people that watched 20 minutes and bailed like an above poster said.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Domandred said:


> Anyway this is bad news not only for us but for NBC. Have you seen the ratings lately, not on any show but on the networks. ABC is KILLING NBC in ratings. CBS is killing NBC for crying out loud. CBS. Ten years ago that network couldn't buy a good show from the television script thrift store.


Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but CBS has been the number one network for several years, and NBC has been down for a couple. NBC finished 4th out of the 4 major networks last season, and as soon as American Idol returns on FOX, it will drop to 4th this season too.

Part of the problem is that network execs are not willing to cultivate a new show and help its ratings grow. It's either a hit out of the gate, like LOST and Desperate Housewives were for ABC a couple of years ago, or it gets cancelled. I'm sure that's what NBC was hoping for with this show, because those others brought ABC out of 4th place and back into prominence, but that hasn't happened with S60 and they're probably feeling like they should cut their losses and try for another water-cooler show next season.


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

Make your voice heard! Be intelligent, nice and consise and not mean spirited.

http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/


----------



## fergiej (Oct 9, 2002)

katbug said:


> I like the show, but probably won't miss it terribly. I did think it was a good show though, and if the threads about it here are any indication of the viewers, then their numbers are a little off. Don't they know to check with this forum before cancelling shows? ;0)


I think this may be a good point, actually. Most of us who post here are using TiVos to watch these shows. We, as a whole, probably watch alot more TV than the average viewer without a DVR of any kind. I know I watch many shows that are on the same time as others on other networks. If the main reason they want to cancel is that it's bleeding viewers over to Heroes, then, maybe TiVo data needs to be included in the Nielson ratings. Heroes is very good, but so is S60. Not usually my kind of show, but I am really enjoying it.


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

fergiej said:


> We, as a whole, probably watch alot more TV than the average viewer without a DVR of any kind.


I know I am one of those. Without Tivo I simply wouldn't watch television and get shows from other sources. For example I watched all of Alias on DVD rental (still haven't seen season 5). At least with tivo I can stay current on my schedule instead of the network's schedule.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

What is funny to me is I am convinced if Heroes would have flopped that S60 would have had a better chance of staying on the air. Which goes to show you how really dumb the networks truly are.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I read somewhere that this show is #1 in middle aged people with incomes over $75,000. That makes me think that it is important demographic that NBC does not want to lose. 

Of course one thing I don't understand is to draw more of the audience it wants why do they not re-brodcast this on MSNBC?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

He should have taken the show to CBS or ABC.

or SpikeTV or Sci-Fi, or Channel 1 or the TV Guide Channel.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mwhip said:


> I read somewhere that this show is #1 in middle aged people with incomes over $75,000. That makes me think that it is important demographic that NBC does not want to lose.
> 
> Of course one thing I don't understand is to draw more of the audience it wants why do they not re-brodcast this on MSNBC?





Fox News Article said:


> On Monday, Heroes had 14.3 million viewers. The substantial drop off with 'Studio 60' is probably the last nail in its coffin. The order of the three extra episodes is considered by insiders to be a contractual move, and not one based on faith that they will ever be made or aired. The all important demo situation didnt help: 'Heroes' had 15 percent of viewers aged 18-49. Studio 60 had 8 percent. *The notion that 'Studio 60' is a big draw for NBC among desirables is, sadly, blown on those stats.*


The "desireables" talked about in the article are what you are referring to. Apparently this stat has been a little overblown.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

I am quite fond of this show, and will be sad if it gets cancelled. I am also surprised that Sorkin didn't have some sort of commitment beyond, you know, 10 shows, but maybe not. I mean, even Sports Night, which exactly seven people ever watched in its original ABC run, got two seasons...Joey got two seasons, fer cryin' out loud.

Bad decision by NBC--but I have been expecting it.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

mwhip said:


> I read somewhere that this show *is #1 in middle aged people with incomes over $75,000*. That makes me think that it is important demographic that NBC does not want to lose.
> 
> Of course one thing I don't understand is to draw more of the audience it wants why do they not re-brodcast this on MSNBC?





Fox News Article said:


> On Monday, Heroes had 14.3 million viewers. The substantial drop off with 'Studio 60' is probably the last nail in its coffin. The order of the three extra episodes is considered by insiders to be a contractual move, and not one based on faith that they will ever be made or aired. The all important demo situation didnt help: *'Heroes' had 15 percent of viewers aged 18-49. Studio 60 had 8 percent.* The notion that 'Studio 60' is a big draw for NBC among desirables is, sadly, blown on those stats.





devdogaz said:


> The "desireables" talked about in the article are what you are referring to. Apparently this stat has been a little overblown.


There are two different sets of "desirables" being discussed here. The Fox article is talking about viewers aged 18-49 as being the stat for which NBC is not excelling, while mwhip is talking about middle-aged viewers earning over $75K per year.

The FOX article doesn't address this latter group, but these are two VERY different but desirable audiences.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

BriGuy20 said:


> They had Medium in that slot last year, and it got around 10 million viewers a night. I think that's the timeslot threshold for not cancelling. I actually think Medium would do slightly better in that slot this year given Heroes' ratings and that the shows seem fairly compatible from a subject matter perspective.
> 
> Add in the fact that ~33% of next year's schedule is allotted to gameshows (8PM), and you don't have much room for struggling shows.
> 
> EDIT: BTW, I'm one of those people that watched 20 minutes and bailed like an above poster said.


Medium does make somewhat more sense to me as a companion show to Heroes. What I'm saying is that cancelling Studio 60 based on the argument that it's not holding the Heroes' audience and is not closing the gap with a CSI entry is ridiculous. At the very least, a show with as much talent and promotion already invested in at as Studio 60 deserves a shot at a timeslot that better suits it before dumping the whole show.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

mwhip said:


> I read somewhere that this show is #1 in middle aged people with incomes over $75,000. That makes me think that it is important demographic that NBC does not want to lose.


The problem is that middle-aged people aren't as easily influenced by advertising, and a higher income doesn't necessarily mean a higher disposable income.

They may be making over $75,000 a year, but that money is going towards things like car payments (nicer, more expensive cars than younger people are driving); mortgage payments (nicer, more expensive places than younger people are living in); family vacations; saving/paying for their children's educations; and saving for retirement.

When you're younger, you don't have as many of these "grown-up" expenses and you're not as set in your ways when it comes to being swayed by advertising.

Beyond the luxury car manufacturers and investment firms, there aren't too many advertisers going after the older, higher-income viewers, so NBC can't make as much money from them.


----------



## Stylin (Dec 31, 2004)

Agreed. Networks main desirable audience is 18-34, the second desirable is 18-49. If a show running in a primetime slot does not attract the above age range, it's a flop.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> At the very least, a show with as much talent and promotion already invested in at as Studio 60 deserves a shot at a timeslot that better suits it before dumping the whole show.


But where do you put it? It has already mostly washed out on Mondays. Thursdays aren't an option given recent announcements (and it was moved from there originally, anyway). Wednesdays are unlikely because it would get slaughtered by the combination of Lost and Criminal minds, unless it went into the 10:00 EST slot, but then it would have no lead-in help. Which leaves Tuesday, which is already a highly competitive night and soon will be Fox's to lose, once American Idol comes back. It's just hard to see how Studio 60 could have a realistic chance of doing better anywhere else.

Edit: of course I forgot Sundays, largely because that night isn't an option until the back half of the season, once football is over.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Yup the writer of the article was spot on.....I saw the writing on the wall after the 2nd and for sure 3rd episodes. 

It's a topic the general viewing public just doesn't care enough about...no matter what writer makes the show, and what actor stars in it, it did not and can not save S60. 

It was doomed from the beginning pretty much.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> But where do you put it? It has already mostly washed out on Mondays. Thursdays aren't an option given recent announcements (and it was moved from there originally, anyway). Wednesdays are unlikely because it would get slaughtered by the combination of Lost and Criminal minds, unless it went into the 10:00 EST slot, but then it would have no lead-in help. Which leaves Tuesday, which is already a highly competitive night and soon will be Fox's to lose, once American Idol comes back. It's just hard to see how Studio 60 could have a realistic chance of doing better anywhere else.
> 
> Edit: of course I forgot Sundays, largely because that night isn't an option until the back half of the season, once football is over.


Yeah, Sundays seem to be the best possible option once the football season is over, but that's still two months away. Could it hold its own against Desperate Housewives and Cold Case? Would The Apprentice be a good lead-in?


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm not surprised. From the start NBC was promoting it as "check out the STARS we have on this show!!" Whoopty-ding? As others have said in the episode threads, this show seems to want to have 'smart' viewers while at the same time the writing has this annoying pretentious slant through it that is bound to alienate some of them.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

Give it either Wednesday nights opposite American Idol, or Sunday night once football is over. West Wing did well opposite Idol, since the two shows have different audiences. I think S60 would do well there too.


----------



## Dignan (Jan 27, 2002)

I want to watch a show that talks over people's heads, please. I want to be challenged; I want great acting, smart, funny, and poignant. Maybe cable will have to be the last bastion for intelligent programming.

I hope this "Fox" reporter is wrong and the show lives on. If it doesn't, its kind of made its point.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

IMHO "The Wrap Party" is one of the best hours of TV ever. I'd be hard-pressed to find another series where episode 106 was as good as this one. 

Yet it (and the series) is deemed a failure simply because it doesn't attract the particular demographic the bean-counters are looking for.

This is what we get when we let bean counters decide what we read and watch. 

Jan


----------



## stargazer21 (May 22, 2002)

Dignan said:


> If it doesn't, its kind of made its point.


Bingo.


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> IMHO "The Wrap Party" is one of the best hours of TV ever. I'd be hard-pressed to find another series where episode 106 was as good as this one.
> 
> Yet it (and the series) is deemed a failure simply because it doesn't attract the particular demographic the bean-counters are looking for.
> 
> ...


+1.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

rhuntington3 said:


> Make your voice heard! Be intelligent, nice and consise and not mean spirited.
> http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/


Wouldn't it work better if you said, "Hey, if you cancel this show, then I will boycott the products advertised on whatever show replaces it." Being nice and concise will get you nowhere with fewer words, that's all.

I remember when Soap got canned because of the Moral Majority (I think that was the name) and their write-in campaign. Do you think the people writing in were nice and concise? No, they just said that they would boycott whatever product was advertized on the show, and that was pretty much game over.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Yet it (and the series) is deemed a failure simply because it doesn't attract the particular demographic the bean-counters are looking for.


Um, it hasn't attracted *any* demographic.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

No write-in campaign, nor boycott will help save this show..it just doesn't have mass appeal.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> IMHO "The Wrap Party" is one of the best hours of TV ever. I'd be hard-pressed to find another series where episode 106 was as good as this one.


Wow. This was the first episode of the show that made me think that perhaps Sorkin really doesn't get it, and the series is beyond hope. I thought it was almost unwatchably bad. Way too talky in a bad way, focused on characters and situations we couldn't possibly care about (and shouldn't have to), very slow as a result, and indifferently characterized. Even the Eli Wallach stuff, which did pay off, took _forever_ to do so.



> Yet it (and the series) is deemed a failure simply because it doesn't attract the particular demographic the bean-counters are looking for.
> 
> This is what we get when we let bean counters decide what we read and watch.


There are moments in television when this kind of self-righteous indignation is warranted, but I don't believe this is one of them. The show is turning into a mess. Note that I _want_ it to succeed. But I think Sorkin is doing this to himself, and to his network. Maybe if they were your beans you'd feel otherwise.


----------



## Meathead (Feb 19, 2002)

katbug said:


> P.S. If 30-Rock makes it after this one's been cancelled...ugh, I can't even think about it.


They are the exact same show. 30 Rock is meant to be a more funny Office-esque show while S60 is supposed to be like the West Wing.

I actually like S60 & I am starting to get pissed at the mid-season cancellations.


----------



## RayChuang88 (Sep 5, 2002)

_Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip_ is failing for one reason: NBC is reputedly spending _US$3 million per episode_ and they're not getting a decent return for that much investment. Small wonder why NBC wants to pull the plug on this show.

But yet why is _Heroes_ succeeding? I think because its storyline has a strong appeal to viewers in general.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Meathead said:


> They are the exact same show.


No they're not. Are you the same person who claimed that they were the "exact" same show in another thread?

They have nothing whatsoever to do with each other except for the fact that they are both about people who put on a sketch comedy show. Are _Grey's Anatomy_ and _Scrubs_ the "exact same show"? Were _NYPD Blue_ and _Barney Miller_ the "exact same show"?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

RayChuang88 said:


> But yet why is _Heroes_ succeeding? I think because its storyline has a strong appeal to viewers in general.


...and it's not up against the powerhouse of _CSI: Miami_, the (season average) #5 show...


----------



## Meathead (Feb 19, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> No they're not. Are you the same person who claimed that they were the "exact" same show in another thread?
> 
> They have nothing whatsoever to do with each other except for the fact that they are both about people who put on a sketch comedy show. Are _Grey's Anatomy_ and _Scrubs_ the "exact same show"? Were _NYPD Blue_ and _Barney Miller_ the "exact same show"?


I have stated before that they are the exact same show & I still stand by that. Scrubs & ER are completely different. NYPD Blue & Barney Miller are completely different. S60 & 30 Rock are the exact same show with different casts & different crews. One knows it is a sit com & the other thinks it is a drama. That is where the differences end.

But what does it really matter? In the end, NBC will realize that they only need to keep one version of the same show.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Meathead said:


> One knows it is a sit com & the other thinks it is a drama.


One *is* a sitcom and the other *is* a drama. Perhaps you are confused because _S60_ is a drama about a comedy show. That doesn't make it any less of a drama.


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

Meathead said:


> But what does it really matter? In the end, NBC will realize that they only need to keep one version of the same show.


NBC had ER AND Scrubs, and now Scrubs is coming back.

Seems to me that they have had different versions of the same show in the past, and they will again soon.


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

I watch every week but will not miss it that much. Guess I don't really get the show it is way to talky at times and not enough humor. I don't give up on shows to fast and was hoping it would get better as the season went on. The last episode IMO was terrible it was boring it featured to many characters I could careless about. A show some times can try to be to damn smart for its own good. 

I do wonder how many people who are mad the show is being cancelled bailed on other shows after a few episodes.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

This sucks, and I am utterly disappointed. Two years in a row shows that I really, really enjoy get cancelled too soon (the other being Love Monkey). 

And to whomever posted that quip about Sports Night earlier, I was one of the seven. And I told every single person I could how great that show was when it was on trying to get them to watch. I have done the same thing with S60, but apparently I don't know enough Nielsen families.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

getbak said:


> The problem is that middle-aged people aren't as easily influenced by advertising, and a higher income doesn't necessarily mean a higher disposable income.
> 
> They may be making over $75,000 a year, but that money is going towards things like car payments (nicer, more expensive cars than younger people are driving); mortgage payments (nicer, more expensive places than younger people are living in); family vacations; saving/paying for their children's educations; and saving for retirement.
> 
> ...


Wow. I can't believe I just read that.  You should never go into marketing.

That audience is what kept The West Wing on the air for seven seasons. It consistently drew the most affluent audience of any network TV show and therefore the ad spots were highly coveted even if the ratings weren't as high as some other shows.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> Wow. This was the first episode of the show that made me think that perhaps Sorkin really doesn't get it, and the series is beyond hope. I thought it was almost unwatchably bad. Way too talky in a bad way, focused on characters and situations we couldn't possibly care about (and shouldn't have to), very slow as a result, and indifferently characterized. Even the Eli Wallach stuff, which did pay off, took _forever_ to do so.
> 
> There are moments in television when this kind of self-righteous indignation is warranted, but I don't believe this is one of them. The show is turning into a mess. Note that I _want_ it to succeed. But I think Sorkin is doing this to himself, and to his network. Maybe if they were your beans you'd feel otherwise.


I thought that after a shaky start in the first couple of episodes, with "The Wrap Party", the show hit its full stride. It quit being "sorta The West Wing, only set in this other place" and turned into _Studio 60_ at last. The cast has settled nicely into their roles, we got a tremendous amount of good character stuff, and the whole thing was topped off by a gorgeous performance by Eli Wallach.

You think "The Wrap Party" sucked? Then I say it's too bad that all TV doesn't suck like that.

Jan


----------



## Hersheytx (Feb 15, 2003)

Could Alan Sorkin make a buddy cop show with Matthew Perry and Bradley Witford. Make it a drama with some laughs. Yeah...call it Law & Order on the Sunset Strip. 
I think we could put it on Monday nights, after Heros. That would work!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

RayChuang88 said:


> _Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip_ is failing for one reason: NBC is reputedly spending _US$3 million per episode_ and they're not getting a decent return for that much investment.


I really think this is it. NBC might be willing to stick with a show with mediocre reviews (of course it is NBC we're talking about), but when you have, and are paying for, the kind of talent they have on S60 they won't be willing to nurse it along too far. The question is, regardless of how much it costs, are they at least breaking even on the show? If so then IMO they should keep it and see if it can grow. If they're losing lots of $$ every week then, as much as I like the show, it's hard to justify.

Note to vikingguy: so far the only show that I started watching then bailed on this season was _Smith_. That was just a bad show. _Jericho_ is hanging onto its SP by a thread; each of the last 2 episodes have stretched that thread further.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Alfer2003 said:


> No write-in campaign, nor boycott will help save this show..it just doesn't have mass appeal.


Didn't you just lose $100?


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I'm hoping another network, or cable channel picks the show up. Too much talent on this show for it to die.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> It's stupid because the idea that whatever else they plug into that slot is goinng to "catch up" to CSI is absurd. I believe that history has shown us pretty clearly that juggernaut shows rarely get beat by something new. Rather, they begin to deteriorate/get old and THEN the pack catches up to them. The trick is to have something ready when the deterioration starts. Furthermore, pairing Studio 60 with Heroes is lousy programming. What is it about the two shows that suggests that they might share an audience? There's virtually NO similarity, in style or tone, between them.


 :up: What I can't understand is why can all of us see that, yet network exects seem oblivious time and time again to this kind of stuff?


----------



## askewed (Sep 12, 2000)

Aaaaaahhhhhhaahhahahaahhh!!!!!!!!


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

I find it amusing that CSI: Miami is considered a hit this season when what I've watched of it this season (not live or tivo'd either but downloaded) was crap. The Rio episode nearly made me vomit in my mouth.

Meanwhile, I've been eating up every episode of Studio 60. It's what I like to watch. Apparently though, what I like to watch is too small a demographic to keep a show going. 

Overall, I thought the article was biased and poorly written but he did bring up two good points; 1) the sense of urgency that's almost too reminiscent of West Wing and 2) that Mathew Perry has done a great job as Matt Alby.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

West Wing West has declined steadily since its premier and deserves a quick death.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Lori said:


> Didn't you just lose $100?


Er...I think he just WON $100, actually, if this news is true.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jradford said:


> Er...I think he just WON $100, actually, if this news is true.


I thought the bet was that he could not stay away from Studio 60 threads...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mrpantstm said:


> I find it amusing that CSI: Miami is considered a hit this season when what I've watched of it this season (not live or tivo'd either but downloaded) was crap. .


"Hit" or not hit has nothing to do with the show's quality. It has to do with the show's popularity. Not the same thing at all.

Of course having said that, I'd rather watch _CSI: Miami_ than half the shows out there (like any show with "Idol", "Dancing" or "Makeover" in the title)...


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I heard NBC is going to replace Studio 60 with a shelved replacment reissue of Jake and the Fatman.


----------



## askewed (Sep 12, 2000)

What if a character on the show gave money away to a screaming lunitic every 20 minutes or they ate a bug mixed with rotten fish heads... Could they leave it on then? Maybe they could pretend to care about sick kids and build someone a house...

Sorry your sick Billy, I hope this KENMORE washer and dryer makes you feel better!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Oh look... someone managed to bring up reality shows in a negative context in a thread about an aaron sorkin show. How unexpected!


----------



## askewed (Sep 12, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> Oh look... someone managed to bring up reality shows in a negative context in a thread about an aaron sorkin show. How unexpected!


Yes, mock me for my I.Q. that works as an insult.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

Jon J said:


> West Wing West has declined steadily since its premier and deserves a quick death.


???


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I thought the bet was that he could not stay away from Studio 60 threads...


That was, in fact, the bet.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

askewed said:


> Yes, mock me for my I.Q. that works as an insult.


You're the only one making a connection between IQ and tv watching habits.


----------



## askewed (Sep 12, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> You're the only one making a connection between IQ and tv watching habits.


Gee, I must have mis-understood your comment. What do you expect from someone that likes Studio 60?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

askewed said:


> Gee, I must have mis-understood your comment. What do you expect from someone that likes Studio 60?


So in your opinion, what DID TAsunder's response have to do with IQ?


----------



## Frank_M (Sep 9, 2001)

I'm going along with the "it's just Fox News" theory, for now. When a network is struggling, the one way to be sure to stay struggling is to cancel quality shows that haven't yet found the audience you want.

I can see CBS having a short leash right now, as they're hot (I could make the obligitory "they'll just replace any show with CSI: My backyard", but I will refrain). But NBC has the luxury of trying to give a show time to grow.

And I hope that they will do this here.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

askewed said:


> Gee, I must have mis-understood your comment. What do you expect from someone that likes Studio 60?


Well, I like studio 60 too but I don't bring up the tired "people are dumb and watch reality tv" argument when it gets cancelled. Studio 60 probably doesn't even have ratings as good as seinfeld syndicated reruns. There are certainly dozens of fictional tv shows that trounce it as far as ratings go. I don't know why you insist on harping on reality tv shows when it got thoroughly flogged by two fictional TV shows in the same slot along with numerous fictional tv shows on one hour before it.


----------



## askewed (Sep 12, 2000)

MickeS said:


> So in your opinion, what DID TAsunder's response have to do with IQ?


S60 is a well written, acted & directed show about a subject that aparently about 7.7m people find interesting. I actually am not as interested in the shows setting as I was with TWW... However, I do enjoy watching quality entertainment that isn't spoon fed to me.

"Look over there Jim it's a meteor that will kill us all... aren't you scared?"

I like thinking and following the actors words. The networks want a certain number of viewers and in order to reach that number the show has to be "friendly" to most... this show is not. Due in part (in my opinion) to "smarter" writing and a lack of the "Let's blow something up or kill it" theory that's driving television.

We're giving up thoughtful for shiny.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Meathead said:


> I have stated before that they are the exact same show & I still stand by that. Scrubs & ER are completely different. NYPD Blue & Barney Miller are completely different. S60 & 30 Rock are the exact same show with different casts & different crews. One knows it is a sit com & the other thinks it is a drama. That is where the differences end.
> 
> But what does it really matter? In the end, NBC will realize that they only need to keep one version of the same show.


LSU is the same thing as Blue Cliff College.


----------



## askewed (Sep 12, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> Well, I like studio 60 too but I don't bring up the tired "people are dumb and watch reality tv" argument when it gets cancelled. Studio 60 probably doesn't even have ratings as good as seinfeld syndicated reruns. There are certainly dozens of fictional tv shows that trounce it as far as ratings go. I don't know why you insist on harping on reality tv shows when it got thoroughly flogged by two fictional TV shows in the same slot along with numerous fictional tv shows on one hour before it.


Maybe you should. 7.7 m people is a lot. A buisness person with 7.7 m perspective clients can make money.

As to "harping"... I made one comment. You seem to be the one with the bee in your bonnet. Have a nice day.


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

Why the choice between S60 and reality shows? Sometimes I'm in the mood for dumbed down tv (my reality show addiction), and other times I need a smart show to feed my brain (S60). I watch both, why would anyone think you have to choose?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

askewed said:


> Maybe you should. 7.7 m people is a lot. A buisness person with 7.7 m perspective clients can make money.
> 
> As to "harping"... I made one comment. You seem to be the one with the bee in your bonnet. Have a nice day.


You made one comment that made no sense. Studio 60 can't even compete with fictional shows that are on the same night. It lost nearly half the viewers who were watching heroes and barely equalled the new adventures of old christine in ratings. Why bring up reality TV? There are lots of fictional shows that are doing a lot better than Studio 60 and they cost quite a bit less.

7.7m isn't much compared to pretty much everything else on monday night. A house re-run got about half that and cost nothing to make since it was a rerun. I don't have an MBA but I'm pretty sure that the house re-run made more money for fox than studio 60 made for NBC.


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

katbug said:


> Why the choice between S60 and reality shows? Sometimes I'm in the mood for dumbed down tv (my reality show addiction), and other times I need a smart show to feed my brain (S60). I watch both, why would anyone think you have to choose?


I haven't read through the entire thread, so it may already be mentioned. I posted this a while back. It appears that NBC is wanting to cut costs and one of those measures is to cut out the scripted dramas and go more with the lower cost reality shows.

Unless something is pulling in boffo ratings, I would think that it's on the block to be chopped. And I would think that S60 has a pretty high weekly budget that shows up in neon on any list that NBC Universal looks at.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

I like the show. It's definitely one that I watch within a couple of days of OAT. 

But for some reason, I wouldn't be that upset if it's cancelled. I was definitely more upset when Life As We Know It, Wonderfalls, and Love Monkey was cancelled. Not sure why but I just won't miss Studio 60 as much. 

Maybe it's because I really didn't like "The Wrap Party." I found it boring and confusing. Probably because I'm not familiar with The Hollywood 10 (nor do I care), I found the guy's parents completely unbelievable and annoying, and absolutely nothing happened throughout the entire show. 

Now if the next ep is better, then I'll be back on the bandwagon but that last ep really turned me off of the show.

Too many inside jokes and references that I just don't get. And I'm a Tivo Junkie. Imagine how Joe American looks at the show (if they watch at all.) I'm willing to guess that's a major problem for the show right there.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Wilhite said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread, so it may already be mentioned. I posted this a while back. It appears that NBC is wanting to cut costs and one of those measures is to cut out the scripted dramas and go more with the lower cost reality shows.
> 
> Unless something is pulling in boffo ratings, I would think that it's on the block to be chopped. And I would think that S60 has a pretty high weekly budget that shows up in neon on any list that NBC Universal looks at.


That actually makes the reality comment a little less out of left field, although it never really was out of left field anyway since it is a very common response to when someone doesn't like studio 60 or the west wing. However, according to the article, studio 60 doesn't seem to fit the criteria. It's on from 10-11, not 7-8. Though it is still high priced. But so is heroes, which got a full season extension I believe.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Wilhite said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread, so it may already be mentioned. I posted this a while back. It appears that NBC is wanting to cut costs and one of those measures is to cut out the scripted dramas and go more with the lower cost reality shows.


Irony at it's best.

This is exactly an NBS-in-the-making... what the Studio 60 show was all about, in reverse.


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

Wilhite said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread, so it may already be mentioned. I posted this a while back. It appears that NBC is wanting to cut costs and one of those measures is to cut out the scripted dramas and go more with the lower cost reality shows.
> 
> Unless something is pulling in boffo ratings, I would think that it's on the block to be chopped. And I would think that S60 has a pretty high weekly budget that shows up in neon on any list that NBC Universal looks at.


lol, actually, I posted the same thing 'cuz I just finished reading an article in EW about it, but I was wondering why some people here are implying that you either watch one or the other. I guess I'm just a tv junkie, so I watch some of everything.


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

Supfreak26 said:


> But for some reason, I wouldn't be that upset if it's cancelled. I was definitely more upset when Life As We Know It, Wonderfalls, and Love Monkey was cancelled. Not sure why but I just won't miss Studio 60 as much.


Thank you for confirming that I didn't just imagine Wonderfalls! My daughter just asked me the other day whatever happened to that show and I didn't have an answer 'cuz it just disappeared, never to be heard from or about again.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

katbug said:


> lol, actually, I posted the same thing 'cuz I just finished reading an article in EW about it, but I was wondering why some people here are implying that you either watch one or the other. I guess I'm just a tv junkie, so I watch some of everything.


Actually I think the implication was either you have a high IQ and watch studio 60 or you have a low IQ and watch reality shows. Anything in the theoretical "middle" is as yet undefined, although if you combine the opinions of different people together, you can conclude that Sudio 60 is the only intelligent show on TV, and therefore both reality shows and other fictional shows are all lumped in the "for dumb people" category.


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

So does having an IQ of a Mensan qualify for the S60 or the reality shows? lol. I know lots of incredibly intelligent people who love reality shows, and some with lower IQs who enjoy S60. I can see where someone would come up with Reality=low IQ, S60=high IQ, but I don't buy it. Even intelligent people want to be able to sit in front of the boob tube for a little brain-numbing, non-thinking programming at the end of the day.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

katbug said:


> So does having an IQ of a Mensan qualify for the S60 or the reality shows? lol. I know lots of incredibly intelligent people who love reality shows, and some with lower IQs who enjoy S60. I can see where someone would come up with Reality=low IQ, S60=high IQ, but I don't buy it. Even intelligent people want to be able to sit in front of the boob tube for a little brain-numbing, non-thinking programming at the end of the day.


 :up:

I like S60, The Office (even watched the British version before most people even heard about it), I liked the West Wing and Arrested Development.

I also watch Survivor, Amazing Race, Dog the Bounty Hunter, Biggest Loser and Americas Next Top model (though that is really my wife, who is smarter than I am).

Take that demographers!


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I thought the bet was that he could not stay away from Studio 60 threads...


Quite possibly, though I thought it was just for the Studio 60 episode threads.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Lee L said:


> :up:
> 
> I like S60, The Office (even watched the British version before most people even heard about it), I liked the West Wing and Arrested Development.
> 
> ...


Careful... to some people the above information is like introducing a paradox to a star trek android. We don't want to get brain matter on people's keyboards.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

I think that conventional wisdom is not that watching reality tv equates to low intelligence, but that not watching anything else equates to low intelligence.

If you're watching S60 and Grey's Anatomy and BSG and Veronica Mars and CSI: Law and Order and the Amazing Race and American Idol and 60 Minutes and The Class and Monday Night Football...well, I'd go out on a limb and say, yeah, pretty bright, reality TV or no. 

If you're watching nothing but The Bachelor, Flavor of Love, Wife Swap, Fear Factor and Pimp My Ride, well...I think that says something about you. 

And since those shows are cheap, the networks love you more than they love us and that makes us--the discerning TV viewer-- cranky.

Now, where's that flame suit?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

You also gotta figure that stupid people are probably underrepresented in the ratings.

After all, since they're that stupid, how can they fill out the ratings book?


----------



## NinerK (Oct 10, 2002)

TheMerk said:


> Homicide was a very good show that NBC stuck with, even though it was never a ratings blockbuster. But that was the old NBC, and the press didn't write articles about how terrible the ratings were, just how great the show was.
> 
> NBC needs to grow a pair.


LOL that this was a theme on Studio 60 2 weeks ago. The jerky guy wanted some dumb reality show but the woman in charge said no.....then later in the show they went for the United Nations show by an up and coming writer because it was a "good" show. The theme was "let's put a good show on the network and not this reality/gameshow crap that is dominating airwaves"......

Studio 60 isn't the best show but it has tons of potential. What a joke; Sorkin's reputation alone should get this show at least a season. Let him get the characters going.....


----------



## NinerK (Oct 10, 2002)

Domandred said:


> NBC had ER AND Scrubs, and now Scrubs is coming back.
> 
> Seems to me that they have had different versions of the same show in the past, and they will again soon.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

katbug said:


> Thank you for confirming that I didn't just imagine Wonderfalls! My daughter just asked me the other day whatever happened to that show and I didn't have an answer 'cuz it just disappeared, never to be heard from or about again.


Except that the entire season, including many episodes not aired in the US, was released on DVD. It's definitely worth a rental even though it is a little bittersweet thinking of the possible story lines the actions were setting up fir the never made second season.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

dswallow said:


> You also gotta figure that stupid people are probably underrepresented in the ratings.
> 
> After all, since they're that stupid, how can they fill out the ratings book?


It's a butterfly ballot and they put all the reality shows in prime position so that dumb people accidentally punch the hole for fear factor when they really meant to put my name is earl.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Figures. Just when I'm starting to enjoy it.

The networks are really teaching me to not give new shows a try by pulling them so soon.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

In my opinion the failure of S60 has nothing to do with it being "too smart" for an audience. I gave the show three episodes and found it to be nothing but political fluff in the same vein as the West Wing. A lot of people are talking about how hip and smart the show is and how they don't want stuff spoon fed to them. As far as I could tell, that's all the show was doing. Spoon feeding a political viewpoint in a market that's already completely saturated with the same political viewpoint. I didn't give up on S60 because it was too smart for me, I gave up on it because I felt like its political insinuations were an insult to my intelligence.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Several thoughts:

1) Studio 60's fate could very well be decided tonight with the Friday Night Lights airing. I would think that if FNL significantly outperforms S60 in the same timeslot, the S60 fans could face their show getting canned.
2) Regarding the reality vs. S60 debate, I do look at S60, West Wing, Lost, etc. as more "intelligent" television and reality shows as mindless dreck. That's just me. I don't think I'm more intelligent because I watch those scripted shows and don't watch reality shows. I can absolutely understand how people would watch both intelligent scripted shows and idiot reality shows. Simple escapism.
3) It's unbelievable to me the number of people who watched Sports Night. Why did this show get cancelled?!?!
4) Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that this report is coming from an essay and not an actual report in something like Variety or Entertainment Weekly? The author is spot on, but I don't necessarily think cancellation is imminent, even with a strong performance from Friday Night Lights tonight.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

stalemate said:


> Burn in Hell NBC!


+1

.....er.........

-1


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> It's a butterfly ballot and they put all the reality shows in prime position so that dumb people accidentally punch the hole for fear factor when they really meant to put my name is earl.


What do they do with the hanging chads?

Also, I suspect that Hugo Chávez is somehow involved in rigging our television ratings.


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

Lori said:


> If you're watching nothing but The Bachelor, Flavor of Love, Wife Swap, Fear Factor and Pimp My Ride, well...I think that says something about you.


Phew, none of my reality shows were listed here, lol. Mine are the "intelligent reality shows", lmao, jk. I do watch America's Next Top Model, Big Brother, Survivor, Project Runway, Amazing Race, (and of course, the ultimate mindless show: The Surreal Life  ) etc., but also balance it out with S60, Brothers and Sisters, CSI, Without A Trace, Criminal Minds, Grey's Anatomy, Numb3rs, etc. so I think I'm safe.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

serumgard said:


> 3) It's unbelievable to me the number of people who watched Sports Night. Why did this show get cancelled?!?!


IIRC, _Sports Night_ was getting higher ratings in its second season than S60 has been getting in the past couple of weeks.

But as we see now with S60, many millions of people can be watching and it still isn't good enough, relative to the competition.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

serumgard said:


> Several thoughts:
> 
> 3) It's unbelievable to me the number of people who watched Sports Night. Why did this show get cancelled?!?!


You know, I'm stunned. I wanted to prove to you that it got cancelled cause no one watched, so I looked it up.

In its second season, Sports Night averaged a little over 8 million households per week. I'm not sure what formula Nielsen uses to convert households to viewers, but I would guess that that puts them over 10,000,000 viewers in an average week.

So, I got nothing, except lingering awe at the stupidity of ABC on this point. Anyone who couldn't make money off of Sports Night should indeed have gotten out of the money-making business.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

katbug said:


> Phew, none of my reality shows were listed here, lol. Mine are the "intelligent reality shows", lmao, jk. I do watch America's Next Top Model, Big Brother, Survivor, Project Runway, Amazing Race, (and of course, the ultimate mindless show: The Surreal Life  ) etc., but also balance it out with S60, Brothers and Sisters, CSI, Without A Trace, Criminal Minds, Grey's Anatomy, Numb3rs, etc. so I think I'm safe.


Doesn't that stuff just cancel each other out so it'd be like staring at a dark wall instead?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

dswallow said:


> You also gotta figure that stupid people are probably underrepresented in the ratings.
> 
> After all, since they're that stupid, how can they fill out the ratings book?


Thye get the little, black boxes that attach to the TV.



No paper work required.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> Thye get the little, black boxes that attach to the TV.
> 
> 
> 
> No paper work required.


Even those sorts have to know how to change a channel.


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Doesn't that stuff just cancel each other out so it'd be like staring at a dark wall instead?


Exactly! :up:


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Although I like the acting, writing, and production style of the show, I can see how it would be axed. Sorkin has applied his formula (which I like) to various settings such as the White House and a sports show. But I find the application to an evening entertainment show to be unpromising and at times boring. 

Most of America doesn't care or cannot relate to the workings of Hollywood. If Sorkin applied his formula to a law firm, hospital, fire department, police department, a regular office environment, or even a news program/network I think he would have more success. When I am trying to escape into a television show I don't want to be reminded of what I am escaping into (does that make sense?). I think an entertaining show about an entertaining show is hard to pull off.


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

Aha! I've got the winning formula! Sorkin doing a show about the inner-workings of a reality TV show! YES!!! It's a hit waiting to happen!! :up: :up: lmao


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

I only watched two episodes and quit. It just didn't entertain me. One of the guys I work with, who's as high-brow, artsy and liberal as they come, said it was *too* dramatic. He said something like "They give off the impression that they are working on a cure for cancer or something".

That said, I think the show was doomed from the beginning. DeDondeEs touched on this a few posts earlier. I don't think most of America wants to know that putting on a TV show is such an ambitious effort. It ruins the illusion that actors, athletes, etc. are paid too much for too little.

I figured NBC would give it longer, though. This was clearly intended to be their "prestige" show for this year. I'm sure they already had "Emmy winner Studio 60" promos ready.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Royster said:


> Except that the entire season, including many episodes not aired in the US, was released on DVD. It's definitely worth a rental even though it is a little bittersweet thinking of the possible story lines the actions were setting up fir the never made second season.


The entire run of Wonderfalls was (is?) on Logo.


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

DougF said:


> I figured NBC would give it longer, though. This was clearly intended to be their "prestige" show for this year. I'm sure they already had "Emmy winner Studio 60" promos ready.


Same. I figured they'd give this show an entire season due to hype and it's "prestige". Guess no show is safe these days unless you are insta-hit.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

katbug said:


> Phew, none of my reality shows were listed here, lol. Mine are the "intelligent reality shows", lmao, jk. I do watch America's Next Top Model, Big Brother, Survivor, Project Runway, Amazing Race, (and of course, the ultimate mindless show: The Surreal Life  ) etc., but also balance it out with S60, Brothers and Sisters, CSI, Without A Trace, Criminal Minds, Grey's Anatomy, Numb3rs, etc. so I think I'm safe.


Mine arent. I enjoyed Flavor of Love. And Wife Swap. Guess that makes my vote not count when it comes to smart shows.  

I get tired of the old "reality TV is garbage" argument.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> The entire run of Wonderfalls was (is?) on Logo.


Is. Over and over and over and over and over (et. al.) again.

It's scary to think how long they could rerun a series that last more than half a season.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

Two truths:

If you eat too much, you will get fat.

If you watch too much TV, you will turn into an idiot.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Raimi said:


> I didn't give up on S60 because it was too smart for me, I gave up on it because I felt like its political insinuations were an insult to my intelligence.


What were those insinuations? Ridiculing people who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago?


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Mine arent. I enjoyed Flavor of Love. And Wife Swap. Guess that makes my vote not count when it comes to smart shows.
> 
> I get tired of the old "reality TV is garbage" argument.


Angie, I'm a little biased, cause I work with folks and that's all they watch. And all they ever want to talk about. And I keep thinking, you know, you folks are the problem--you don't want to be challenged, you don't want to watch *anything* where the goal isn't to embarrass or humiliate people.

Now, I like a good reality TV show as much as the next chica--I watch American Idol, and Project Runway and I watched that Celebrity Duets thing this summer. But I watch other things, things that make me laugh, things that make me think, things that make me proud. And I know that you do, too--and that's what it is to be a discerning TV viewer.

Your vote counts double.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

This would suck big time.

As at least in my house... it has caught up to CSI... I just deleted my CSI Season Pass last week... we have zero desire to watch CSI:Miami any more, as we just don't care about the characters.

But we love Studio 60


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Lori said:


> You know, I'm stunned. I wanted to prove to you that it got cancelled cause no one watched, so I looked it up.
> 
> In its second season, Sports Night averaged a little over 8 million households per week. I'm not sure what formula Nielsen uses to convert households to viewers, but I would guess that that puts them over 10,000,000 viewers in an average week.
> 
> So, I got nothing, except lingering awe at the stupidity of ABC on this point. Anyone who couldn't make money off of Sports Night should indeed have gotten out of the money-making business.


Actually you have to realize it is all a slippery slope of declining ratings. For some reason the network makes more than ever on worse ratings.

What constitutes a top 10 show now, in terms of audience, would have been canceled 20 years ago. A show getting 14 million viewers would not have even been borderline, it would have been canceled. So the reality is a few years ago the 8 million/10 million whatever Sports Night got represented the same kind of ratings, relatively speaking, as they see now.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

katbug said:


> Aha! I've got the winning formula! Sorkin doing a show about the inner-workings of a reality TV show! YES!!! It's a hit waiting to happen!! :up: :up: lmao


The show they do it on should be the show that Jordan rejected!

It will satisfy BOTH types of TV watchers. Those that love the trai wreck reality shows and those that like the "important" and "smart" scripted dramas.

I'd be in heaven!


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Also... have they changed the way the do the statistics on programs?
Why?

I have yet to watch Studio 60 during it's time slot.

Heros is just that... a show that appeals to a VERY different audience then Studio 60
And is the HOT show right now, that you really have to watch the night that it is on... or risk there being a spoiler somewhere

And even though it is on cable... Monday Night Football is still a big draw.
And with another big year in DVR adoption....


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> Thye get the little, black boxes that attach to the TV.
> 
> 
> 
> No paper work required.


Nelson is sending me books, they aren't using black boxes... At least I am not.

They are sending one book per TV, and a special one for the TiVo.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Magister said:


> Nelson is sending me books, they aren't using black boxes... At least I am not.
> 
> They are sending one book per TV, and a special one for the TiVo.


they do both. Boxes and the journals. Also, they have some sort of relationship with TiVo, don't they?

When I got a journal, I just got one. It showed up in the mail. They didn't know I had a TiVo. They probably didn't even have a special one for it it at the time.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Magister said:


> Nelson is sending me books


Is it this nelson?









Or this one?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> I'm hoping another network, or cable channel picks the show up. Too much talent on this show for it to die.


Unless CBS or ABC picks it up, it would be toast.
I don't see Fox picking it up and no one else could afford it.
(Well, not without making severe cuts and I can't see Sorkin agreeing with that)


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

MickeS said:


> What were those insinuations? Ridiculing people who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago?


How about the constant jabs at anything conservative? Or the constant we're smarter than they are elitism that permeates everything that Sorkin is involved in (and not surprisingly, it has even reared its head in this thread with the "smart" people love the show garbage). The show didn't fail because it was too "good" for its audience. It failed because it's a West Wing clone minus the interesting premise and compelling characters. Not even a huge amount of viewers that share the shows political views are interested enough to keep watching. Sorry, but its true.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

JYoung said:


> Unless CBS or ABC picks it up, it would be toast.
> I don't see Fox picking it up and no one else could afford it.
> (Well, not without making severe cuts and I can't see Sorkin agreeing with that)


I don't see any network other than NBC trying to air it.

It would be akin to running promos for Saturday Night Live on CBS or ABC.

phox


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Magister said:


> Nelson is sending me books, they aren't using black boxes... At least I am not.


The Nielsen viewers that are sampled for the national ratings have "boxes" that keep track of their viewing.



> In a specially selected sample of homes, Nielsen Media Research technicians install metering equipment on TV sets, VCRs and cable boxes (and even satellite dishes). The NielsenTV meters automatically and invisibly keep track of when the sets are on and what the sets are tuned to. These meters are connected to a central "black box," which is actually a very small computer and modem. Information from the meters is collected by the black box, and in the middle of the night all the black boxes call in their information to our central computers.


The booklets are used for local ratings only, not the national ratings. Except during sweeps periods, when the booklets are used nationally to compare with the data from the the boxes.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Unless CBS or ABC picks it up, it would be toast.
> I don't see Fox picking it up and no one else could afford it.
> (Well, not without making severe cuts and I can't see Sorkin agreeing with that)


It would be ironic after the prior episode if Studio 60 ended up on HBO.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Nielsen does the journals for week-long surveys. The black boxes are used for longer-term Nielsen families, as far as I know - like a month long or longer. Finally, they do partner with at least TiVo - possibly other DVR providers - to get data that way as well.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Nielson gets my data directly from my HD TiVo. I don't have to do anything. They contacted me and asked for my permission to monitor my TiVo viewing data.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Magister said:


> Nelson is sending me books, they aren't using black boxes... At least I am not.
> 
> They are sending one book per TV, and a special one for the TiVo.


Aren't you violating your agreement with Nielsen? You aren't supposed to publically admit you are a Nielsen "family." At least that was the agreement when I did some sweeps stuff for them a few years ago.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Aren't you violating your agreement with Nielsen? You aren't supposed to publically admit you are a Nielsen "family." At least that was the agreement when I did some sweeps stuff for them a few years ago.


really?? IIRC, you were supposed to log everyone who was actually watching, and I believe that included guests.

But I may not remember it right. It was a while ago.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> It would be ironic after the prior episode if Studio 60 ended up on HBO.


Yes yes it would


----------



## Gene S (Feb 11, 2003)

Raimi said:


> The show didn't fail because it was too "good" for its audience. It failed because it's a West Wing clone minus the interesting premise and compelling characters. Not even a huge amount of viewers that share the shows political views are interested enough to keep watching. Sorry, but its true.


I've never seen The West Wing or Sports Night, but I love S60. Is the show political or is it just Sorkin? I don't remember too much political talk going on. There's the bit with the 700 club, but that's a side story related to the break-up of a couple.
I wish the real president of NBC, would grow a pair like Jordan, and recognize a good show and stick with it, instead of letting only 6 weeks of ratings determine its fate.
It's funny, the reoccurring theme of the show is "America isn't stupid, broadcast good, quality television, and the audience will find you." Seems to me the real NBC is saying, "No, America *is* stupid."


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

S60 isn't as political as The West Wing, of course. Can't comment on how it compares to Sports Night, as I've never seen it.


It's easy for NBS (the fake NBC) to grow a pair because they have fake stockholders that only demand fake profits.


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

Jeff, you haven't see Sports Night? Sheesh! Its very, very good. Go to Fry's and pick up the set.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

rhuntington3 said:


> Jeff, you haven't see Sports Night? Sheesh! Its very, very good. Go to Fry's and pick up the set.


nope. Didn't become aware of Sorkin until after the first season of The West Wing while I was watching the Emmy's. West Wing was cleaning up and everytime someone went up there to accept, the first people they thanked were Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme. So, I decided I needed to start watching. I did, and I was hooked. Great show. I miss it terribly. While I like S60, I prefer WW. For me, a more interesting story premise that much better fits the intelligence of writing, acting, etc.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Gene S said:


> I've never seen The West Wing or Sports Night, but I love S60. Is the show political or is it just Sorkin? I don't remember too much political talk going on. There's the bit with the 700 club, but that's a side story related to the break-up of a couple.
> I wish the real president of NBC, would grow a pair like Jordan, and recognize a good show and stick with it, instead of letting only 6 weeks of ratings determine its fate.
> It's funny, the reoccurring theme of the show is "America isn't stupid, broadcast good, quality television, and the audience will find you." Seems to me the real NBC is saying, "No, America *is* stupid."


It's very easy to let comments that reinforce your point of view slip by unnoticed. Yes, the show is political.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Raimi said:


> It's very easy to let comments that reinforce your point of view slip by unnoticed. Yes, the show is political.


Once again, what did you think was political? You keep claiming that you were turned off by the politics of the show, but you've yet to make any reference to what bothered you. And I'm not attacking you, I really want to know. I'm conservative, and Christian (although I wouldn't associate myself with traditional "Christian Conservatives") and I love the show and haven't found anything objectionable in it. What was it that bothered you so much?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> Once again, what did you think was political? You keep claiming that you were turned off by the politics of the show, but you've yet to make any reference to what bothered you. And I'm not attacking you, I really want to know. I'm conservative, and Christian (although I wouldn't associate myself with traditional "Christian Conservatives") and I love the show and haven't found anything objectionable in it. What was it that bothered you so much?


he didn't say he was bothered by them. He just said they are there. He is right. It's not a lot, but they are there. But it's not as political as the West Wing, for obvious reasons.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Lori said:


> Angie, I'm a little biased, cause I work with folks and that's all they watch. And all they ever want to talk about. And I keep thinking, you know, you folks are the problem--you don't want to be challenged, you don't want to watch *anything* where the goal isn't to embarrass or humiliate people.
> 
> Now, I like a good reality TV show as much as the next chica--I watch American Idol, and Project Runway and I watched that Celebrity Duets thing this summer. But I watch other things, things that make me laugh, things that make me think, things that make me proud. And I know that you do, too--and that's what it is to be a discerning TV viewer.
> 
> Your vote counts double.


By the way, you were not even close to who my post was targeting. Just happened to be the one I quoted.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

devdogaz said:


> Once again, what did you think was political? You keep claiming that you were turned off by the politics of the show, but you've yet to make any reference to what bothered you. And I'm not attacking you, I really want to know. I'm conservative, and Christian (although I wouldn't associate myself with traditional "Christian Conservatives") and I love the show and haven't found anything objectionable in it. What was it that bothered you so much?


Well obviously this past episode talked about Hollywood blacklisting, and of course that shows that Sorkin is a huge commie sympathizer who didn't care about communism infiltrating the US.

The female lead in the show is a very religious person, and we've never seen her in church, so it's showing how Hollywood's values are not America's values.

One of the 3 leads of the Studio 60 show is a female, and one is black, which is just plainly affirmative action run amok.

And a lot of people, especially AM talk show hosts, think that once you are caught taking drugs, you should go to jail, and in no way should be able to get on with your life, so Danny producing a huge TV show is just another Hollywood way of saying everybody should be taking lots of drugs.

-smak-


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

smak said:


> And a lot of people, especially AM talk show hosts, think that once you are caught taking drugs, you should go to jail, and in no way should be able to get on with your life, so Danny producing a huge TV show is just another Hollywood way of saying everybody should be taking lots of drugs.
> 
> -smak-


you need to start listening to more entertaining AM talk shows.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

My 2 cents:

While the writing is not as compelling as WW, S60 is one of the few intelligent shows on the air, and beautifully produced, directed and acted. It doesn't seem political to me, but there is probably red/blue state skewing as to it's ratings. If it does go off the air, it will be a shame...


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> you need to start listening to more entertaining AM talk shows.


Well, the really entertaining part was that this talk show hosts thoughts applied to everybody but himself.

Hypocrisy is entertaining!

-smak-


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

smak said:


> Well, the really entertaining part was that this talk show hosts thoughts applied to everybody but himself.
> 
> Hypocrisy is entertaining!
> 
> -smak-


d*ck and fart jokes are better.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

So has any other news service picked up this story yet?

As "rumors" like this are two way street...

One way, they could turn viewers off from watching as they don't want to get hooked on a show that is going to be canceled

Other way, it starts discussions like this, which could escallate and ultimately lead to the show not being canceled.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

devdogaz said:


> Once again, what did you think was political? You keep claiming that you were turned off by the politics of the show, but you've yet to make any reference to what bothered you. And I'm not attacking you, I really want to know. I'm conservative, and Christian (although I wouldn't associate myself with traditional "Christian Conservatives") and I love the show and haven't found anything objectionable in it. What was it that bothered you so much?


I've only seen the first 3 episodes once but I'd be glad to give you an idea of what turned me off in the show. From Mathew Perry's bigoted remarks about religious people to the flippant remarks about the Drudge Report to Harriet's comments to the effect of she was behind a sketch because it targeted "the power hungry" (as they were discussing their sketchs targeted at the Bush administration) not the Christians (I'm paraphrasing what I remember here. I don't specifically remember the context of what occurred that I found annoying.)

If you're looking for me to be more specific, I'm afraid your out of luck. As I said I watched each episode once and gave up so I'm simply going by what I remember. The first 3 episodes I watched all focused on the "radical Christian right" and their "evil" efforts to destroy the show by boycotting a product they disagreed with. I'm not religious but to be frank, I'm getting tired of Chritians being portrayed in this light.

If I re-watched the show I could happily give you a point by point description of each jab that's taken at conservatives but I'm not going to do so.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> So has any other news service picked up this story yet?


I've seen this story directly referenced on other news services, but no one else has yet to independently echo this story.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> d*ck and fart jokes are better.


Don't think for a minute that if there weren't significant FCC fines involved that the networks wouldn't lower themselves even further and integrate that into some unscripted reality television show.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

smak said:


> Well obviously this past episode talked about Hollywood blacklisting, and of course that shows that Sorkin is a huge commie sympathizer who didn't care about communism infiltrating the US.
> 
> The female lead in the show is a very religious person, and we've never seen her in church, so it's showing how Hollywood's values are not America's values.
> 
> ...


You should be writing for the show.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

smak said:


> Hypocrisy is entertaining!
> 
> -smak-


You got this part right.


----------



## stargazer21 (May 22, 2002)

> The first 3 episodes I watched all focused on the "radical Christian right" and their "evil" efforts to destroy the show by boycotting a product they disagreed with. I'm not religious but to be frank, I'm getting tired of Chritians being portrayed in this light.


You're right. That is so unfair to even bring it up as a part of the story since that never happens in real life.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Raimi said:


> The first 3 episodes I watched all focused on the "radical Christian right" and their "evil" efforts to destroy the show by boycotting a product they disagreed with. I'm not religious but to be frank, I'm getting tired of Chritians being portrayed in this light.


They're targeting the radical Christian right, not all Christians. You even just said so yourself.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

stargazer21 said:


> You're right. That is so unfair to even bring it up as a part of the story since that never happens in real life.


Boycotting does happen in real life, and so does actual censorship. Just like Tipper Gore's crusade to ban offensive rock music, or the Dems attempt to threaten ABC's broadcast license for airing "The Path to 911." As Smak so elegantly stated, "Hypocrisy is entertaining."

When do I get to see the episode where the "cast" decides to show a skit about a hopeful Democratic candidate and the network is threatened with losing their license by Dems in Congress? Maybe they were saving that one for season 2. I mean, it happens in real life, why not make that the focus of the first 3 episodes.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

David Platt said:


> They're targeting the radical Christian right, not all Christians. You even just said so yourself.


doh!! You win.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Raimi said:


> The first 3 episodes I watched all focused on the "radical Christian right" and their "evil" efforts to destroy the show by boycotting a product they disagreed with. I'm not religious but to be frank, I'm getting tired of Chritians being portrayed in this light.


I don't know that anyone called them "evil". Are you saying that "right-of-center" Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family, Parents Television Council, Concerned Women for America and others are NOT boycotting shows, "forcing" stations to cancel airings and making advertisers pull out? Why would this storyline bother anyone? If you agree with what these groups are doing, you would have seen it as a good thing that they tried, if you don't, you would have seen it as a good thing that they failed.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

dswallow said:


> Don't think for a minute that if there weren't significant FCC fines involved that the networks wouldn't lower themselves even further and integrate that into some unscripted reality television show.


I watch a lot of South Park. I get my fill that way.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Raimi said:


> When do I get to see the episode where the "cast" decides to show a skit about a hopeful Democratic candidate and the network is threatened with losing their license by Dems in Congress? Maybe they were saving that one for season 2. I mean, it happens in real life, why not make that the focus of the first 3 episodes.


Considering that (well, something remotely similar) has AFAIK happened only once, and after they started filming this season of S60, yeah... I think it's more likely it would happen later in the show rather than sooner. 

By the way, that move was one of the dumbest thing the congress Democrats have done. And that says a lot.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Raimi said:


> I've only seen the first 3 episodes once but I'd be glad to give you an idea of what turned me off in the show. From Mathew Perry's bigoted remarks about religious people to the flippant remarks about the Drudge Report to Harriet's comments to the effect of she was behind a sketch because it targeted "the power hungry" (as they were discussing their sketchs targeted at the Bush administration) not the Christians (I'm paraphrasing what I remember here. I don't specifically remember the context of what occurred that I found annoying.)
> 
> If you're looking for me to be more specific, I'm afraid your out of luck. As I said I watched each episode once and gave up so I'm simply going by what I remember. The first 3 episodes I watched all focused on the "radical Christian right" and their "evil" efforts to destroy the show by boycotting a product they disagreed with. I'm not religious but to be frank, I'm getting tired of Chritians being portrayed in this light.
> 
> If I re-watched the show I could happily give you a point by point description of each jab that's taken at conservatives but I'm not going to do so.


The show has been EXTREMELY fair thus far. They've included a character that is a Christian, but not a caricature of one; one that is upfront about her beliefs and willing to talk about them to a reporter from a magazine, and not the least bit concerned about what the reporter might print.

Yes, they've included a plotline where the fairly liberal executive producer/script writer penned a sketch called "Crazy Christians," and on the basis of the title alone, the ultra-conservative far right got offended and threatened a boycott. This isn't particularly a far-fetched plotline - ultra-conservative far-right organizations recruit people to send letters of complaints to the FCC about shows they haven't seen and had no plans to watch.

I truly wish you would go and rewatch the episodes, because I'm beginning to question whether you really watched them at all. I don't remember anything about the sketches "targeting the Bush administration" as being "power hungry" nonsense that you refer to.

In fact, the only political sketch we've seen being performed was in the very first episode, the one the old executive producer interrupts with his rant. Since then, the character of Matt Albie was loathe to write ANY political satire sketches until his co-exec producer basically forced him into doing so, by inserting a question about the show's patriotism into a focus group session. Since then, we've seen that they've included political sketches on the rundown board, but we really haven't seen any of them. I think they may have shown about 2 seconds of one being performed during "The West Coast Delay," but that's about it.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

katbug said:


> ...I watch some of everything.


You aren't alone.

It would be interesting, however, to see which non-scripted shows that Studio 60 fans watch (_Project Runway_, _Top Chef_, _Dancing With the Stars_, _Skating with Celebrities_, and, heaven help me, _Celebrity Duets_ here).

Jan


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

murgatroyd said:


> You aren't alone.
> 
> It would be interesting, however, to see which non-scripted shows that Studio 60 fans watch (_Dancing With the Stars_, _Skating with Celebrities_, and, heaven help me, _Celebrity Duets_ here).
> 
> Jan


Jeopardy, Mythbusters, and Who's Line is it Anyway for me. My wife on the other hand loves American Idol, and I am constantly disappointed by that fact. We'll also watch the occasional HGTV show.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The only "reality" shows I watch are Mythbusters and American Idol... and frankly, I never really get into AI until the actual performance rounds. I can't stand the early episodes where they trot out all the people that can't sing.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

It's pretty clear to me so far that a lot of people allegedly watching the show are merely seeing what they want to see. They are not paying attention to what is actually on the show.

Jan


----------



## Uncle Briggs (Sep 11, 2004)

David Platt said:


> They're targeting the radical Christian right, not all Christians. You even just said so yourself.


Do you think that the "radical Christian right" think of themselves as radical? Who is in charge of affixing the label to this group. What do you have to do to get the "radical" label?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Uncle Briggs said:


> Do you think that the "radical Christian right" think of themselves as radical? Who is in charge of affixing the label to this group. What do you have to do to get the "radical" label?


It helps that you can create an alliteration with the word.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Raimi said:


> I've only seen the first 3 episodes once but I'd be glad to give you an idea of what turned me off in the show. From Mathew Perry's bigoted remarks about religious people ...


Gee, that's funny -- I must have seen a different show.

I did not see Matthew Perry make any remarks, bigoted or not.

"Aaron Sorkin said this" -- "Matthew Perry said that ---"

Good grief! This is fiction. Not all remarks which come out of the mouths of characters express the opinions of the writers on the show or the actors who play those characters. In fact, in MANY cases the actors themselves do not agree with the opinions of the characters they are playing.

Acting is make-believe.

So one _character_ has issues about religion, and mouths off about other people's religious beliefs -- so what? Isn't it more important that the character on the show who is a devout Christian is played in a positive light?

Jan


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

murgatroyd said:


> It's pretty clear to me so far that a lot of people allegedly [experiencing reality] are merely seeing what they want to see. They are not paying attention to what is actually [in reality].
> 
> Jan


(edited for clarification)


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Give me a break.... this show has an OBVIOUS liberal bias. That is one of the reasons I like it. Hollywood also has one, as does SNL. The show does not even remotely try to be fair. If you can't see that, you must be star struck or just a little too in love with the show.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> You aren't alone.
> 
> It would be interesting, however, to see which non-scripted shows that Studio 60 fans watch (_Project Runway_, _Top Chef_, _Dancing With the Stars_, _Skating with Celebrities_, and, heaven help me, _Celebrity Duets_ here).
> 
> Jan


Project Runway, Top Chef, America's Next Top Model, Survivor, Amazing Race, Dancing With the Stars, American Idol, Hell's Kitchen, The Surreal Life....

...and the only one that causes me any kind of embarrassment: Flavor of Love.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

American Idol, Project Runway, Celebrity Duets here.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Give me a break.... this show has an OBVIOUS liberal bias. That is one of the reasons I like it. Hollywood also has one, as does SNL. The show does not even remotely try to be fair. If you can't see that, you must be star struck or just a little too in love with the show.


I don't see any political views in this show. And I'm not star struck (Never heard of Sorkin until this show came out) and I'm not that attached to the show.

I think people just take this show a little too seriously.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Supfreak26 said:


> I don't see any political views in this show. And I'm not star struck (Never heard of Sorkin until this show came out) and I'm not that attached to the show.
> 
> I think people just take this show a little too seriously.


Or we pay attention.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Personally, as someone that holds grudges against (and have been known to boycott more than my fair share of) some of the media and some of the Hollywood types, musicians and others that offer up opinions that I find offensive or inconsistent with my values I would have to say that those that are finding a heavy bias in S60 are -- as stated by Supfreak and others -- taking the show way too seriously.

Yes Sorkin has more than a little bias, and yes it shows through in his shows, but if you aren't looking for a fight or something to spoil over, there wasn't that much in the episodes of S60 that we've seen so far to get your dander up over.

Crazy Christians - big friggin' whoop. It was poking fun at a small portion of the so called religious right. Specifically the Pat Robertson (and his hardcore followers) on that side. Most reasonable human beings would point at Robertson and tell you he's a freakin' whack job. He has made comments that put him so far out on the right that very few people would want to be thought of as hangin' with him.

Science Schmience (or whatever it was called) took another swipe at that group, but also took swipes at the Taliban types and other hard-liners in other religions. It was pointing out idiocy of rigid beliefs in the teachings of some of those groups.

After that, outside of the question by Jordan McDeere on just how much free reign and tolerance she had in regards to the religious right, there really hasn't been that much there. In many ways no more or less than would be found in just about any other show one might encounter on any network.

Of course some people see fire where there is none, or feel that their beliefs make them a lightning rod for constant attacks. If you want to feel that you are being attacked, that's fine, but most reasonable individuals might then legitimately slap a paranoid label on you.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

It's not worth getting upset over, I agree, but to claim it has no bias is ridiculous. It definitely has a bias, as it should.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Ratings numbers (from Zap2It.com) for last nite (Monday, 10/30/2006):


> A "CSI: Miami" rerun, 9.6/17, delivered an easy win for CBS at 10 p.m. A special airing of "Friday Night Lights" on NBC scored a 5.3/9, in line with recent airings of "Studio 60." ABC's "What About Brian" came in at 4.6/8.


Uh, I believe this is what could be termed "a clue" for NBC -- it's not the show that is the problem, it's the time slot.

As I had hoped (sorry to fans of Friday Night Lights), Friday Night Lights didn't do any better than did an episode of S60. People just aren't interested in watching NBC on Monday nights at 10pm (east time). They'd rather watch a TV show about crimes in places where there's a higher probability of seeing bikinis in the background.


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

Thanks for posting that information, bdowell. I hope NBC will at least try Studio 60 in another time slot before giving up on it.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

modnar said:


> Thanks for posting that information bdowell. I hope NBC will at least try Studio 60 in another time slot before giving up on it.


A lot of people have been posting ratings numbers. I might have missed it, but where does Studio 60 come in overall for the week? (all days, all time slots). Does someone have that list?


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

This site has a thorough listing of each episode and how it's numbers keep declining.

ratings


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

bdowell said:


> Ratings numbers (from Zap2It.com) for last nite (Monday, 10/30/2006):
> 
> 
> > A "CSI: Miami" rerun, 9.6/17, delivered an easy win for CBS at 10 p.m. A special airing of "Friday Night Lights" on NBC scored a 5.3/9, in line with recent airings of "Studio 60." ABC's "What About Brian" came in at 4.6/8.
> ...


CSI:Miami was a rerun, and it still did almost double it's nearest competitor.

phox


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Alfer2003 said:


> This site has a thorough listing of each episode and how it's numbers keep declining.
> 
> ratings


I think that link helps to prove that the time-slot is not the problem. Hasn't CSI: Miami been on each of those nights, too?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Alfer2003 said:


> This site has a thorough listing of each episode and how it's numbers keep declining.
> 
> ratings


Ouch.


----------



## itsmeitsmeitsme (Nov 13, 2003)

DougF said:


> I think that link helps to prove that the time-slot is not the problem. Hasn't CSI: Miami been on each of those nights, too?


Hell, CSI seems likes its on every night and sometimes twice.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Never watched it, never found any of the commercials compelling.

And I was never "delivered" to it by Heroes, since I have a DVR.

Hopefully they will put something good in it's place.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

classicX said:


> Never watched it, never found any of the commercials compelling.
> 
> And I was never "delivered" to it by Heroes, since I have a DVR.
> 
> Hopefully they will put something good in it's place.


Well...it's not dead yet!


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> It's not worth getting upset over, I agree, but to claim it has no bias is ridiculous. It definitely has a bias, as it should.


You're right, it isn't worth getting upset over. To me, it was worth watching something else over. But you're right about the bias. Im somewhat in awe that others are trying to suggest that it doesn't exist. But then people try and pretend like CBS isn' biased, or that CNN and Fox News have no bias.

I'm not going to re-watch the show to apease others that doubt that I've seen it. This is the Tivo forum, there's nothing for me to gain by pretending to have watched the show. It's not like my opinion is going to make someone that enjoys the show suddenly change their mind.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

murgatroyd said:


> Gee, that's funny -- I must have seen a different show.
> 
> I did not see Matthew Perry make any remarks, bigoted or not.
> 
> ...


I used Mathew Perry's name in my comment because I've already forgotten the name of his character. I didn't mean to suggest that Perry was speaking from the heart.


----------



## dmaneyapanda (Jan 16, 2000)

How has no one yet mentioned the Steven Weber Curse?


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

NBC is saying that the Fox story about _Studio 60_ is wrong.

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=50417


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Well, that is reassuring. When there was no ep last night I recalled this thread and I was worried that the show had already been pulled, but I guess that's not why. Sounds like there will be no ep this week and then returning next week, probably still on Mondays. Hopefully they won't lose too many more viewers by skipping a week . . .


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Raimi said:


> You're right, it isn't worth getting upset over. To me, it was worth watching something else over. But you're right about the bias. Im somewhat in awe that others are trying to suggest that it doesn't exist. But then people try and pretend like CBS isn' biased, or that CNN and Fox News have no bias.
> 
> I'm not going to re-watch the show to apease others that doubt that I've seen it. This is the Tivo forum, there's nothing for me to gain by pretending to have watched the show. It's not like my opinion is going to make someone that enjoys the show suddenly change their mind.


I still haven't seen any examples of this supposed liberal political bias, other than swipes at the far-right Christians. Do you have any?


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

And the ratings for last night just came out. FNL did a little better than S60 but not much like .3


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Raimi said:


> You're right, it isn't worth getting upset over. To me, it was worth watching something else over. But you're right about the bias. Im somewhat in awe that others are trying to suggest that it doesn't exist. But then people try and pretend like CBS isn' biased, or that CNN and Fox News have no bias.
> 
> I'm not going to re-watch the show to apease others that doubt that I've seen it. This is the Tivo forum, there's nothing for me to gain by pretending to have watched the show. It's not like my opinion is going to make someone that enjoys the show suddenly change their mind.


I'm not claiming the show isn't biased. It's obviously written and produced from a Hollywood liberal point of view. However, as someone with wildly different ideas about politics and religion that what passes for normal in Hollywood, I haven't found anything in the show to be offensive. I'll agree that Pat Robertson is a whack job, I hate the efforts of the Parents Television Council, and I have no problem if a sketch show tries to lampoon the sitting president. Don't forget that SNL did plenty of sketches lampooning Clinton when he was in office.

I think that people who want to see bias and be offended by it will find it everywhere, on both sides. However, most of it isn't intentional and isn't meant to offend, so people should grow thicker skins and just learn to live with it. It would make the world a much better place.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

MickeS said:


> I still haven't seen any examples of this supposed liberal political bias, other than swipes at the far-right Christians. Do you have any?


those are pretty much the main ones.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

bdowell said:


> ... Friday Night Lights didn't do any better than did an episode of S60. More people are interested in watch[ing] a TV show about crimes in places where there's a higher probability of seeing bikinis in the background than they are in watching NBC on Monday nights at 10pm (east time).


Fixed your post. 

Jan


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> those are pretty much the main ones.


If that's what passes for liberal bias, then I guess there is one. I just thought "liberal bias" also involved politics.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Raimi said:


> I used Mathew Perry's name in my comment because I've already forgotten the name of his character. I didn't mean to suggest that Perry was speaking from the heart.


Thanks for the clarification.

Jan


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

devdogaz said:


> I'm not claiming the show isn't biased. It's obviously written and produced from a Hollywood liberal point of view. However, as someone with wildly different ideas about politics and religion that what passes for normal in Hollywood, I haven't found anything in the show to be offensive. I'll agree that Pat Robertson is a whack job, I hate the efforts of the Parents Television Council, and I have no problem if a sketch show tries to lampoon the sitting president. Don't forget that SNL did plenty of sketches lampooning Clinton when he was in office.
> 
> I think that people who want to see bias and be offended by it will find it everywhere, on both sides. However, most of it isn't intentional and isn't meant to offend, so people should grow thicker skins and just learn to live with it. It would make the world a much better place.


I've simply stated my reasons for changing the channel. There's nothing to get over. I'm not on here shouting that the show is offensive and should be cancelled. All I was doing was attempting to explain why conservatives may not find the show enjoyable. And as you've just said, the show comes from a Hollywood liberal point of view. I personally find that distasteful.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

MickeS said:


> If that's what passes for liberal bias, then I guess there is one. I just thought "liberal bias" also involved politics.


liberal/convservative isn't limited to just politics.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Reprieve or no, this feels like Firefly all over again.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Raimi said:


> I'm not going to re-watch the show to apease others that doubt that I've seen it. This is the Tivo forum, there's nothing for me to gain by pretending to have watched the show. It's not like my opinion is going to make someone that enjoys the show suddenly change their mind.


Well, it would help to "appease others that doubt you've seen it" if you would use examples that actually were in the show, when talking about the show.

Your whole bit about political sketches attacking the Bush administration didn't even occur in the show at all. In fact, the whole plot line of an episode talked about the fact that the main script writer was afraid of including political sketches in the show-within-a-show. The fact that you not only got this bit not just wrong, but so completely wrong that you got it backwards from what actually occured makes one question whether you actually watched the show. You might have had the show ON, but you apparently didn't watch it.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> You aren't alone.
> 
> It would be interesting, however, to see which non-scripted shows that Studio 60 fans watch (_Project Runway_, _Top Chef_, _Dancing With the Stars_, _Skating with Celebrities_, and, heaven help me, _Celebrity Duets_ here).
> 
> Jan


I watch a lot of junk, depending on my mood.

Real World/road rules, Flavor of Love, Breaking Bonaduce, Gene Simmons' show, that John Force show, Project Runway, The Surreal Life, Wife Swap, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

But I'm far from typical, I think.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> Well, it would help to "appease others that doubt you've seen it" if you would use examples that actually were in the show, when talking about the show.
> 
> Your whole bit about political sketches attacking the Bush administration didn't even occur in the show at all. In fact, the whole plot line of an episode talked about the fact that the main script writer was afraid of including political sketches in the show-within-a-show. The fact that you not only got this bit not just wrong, but so completely wrong that you got it backwards from what actually occured makes one question whether you actually watched the show. You might have had the show ON, but you apparently didn't watch it.


As I've said, I'm going by memory, but what I mentioned did occur. Just to make you happy (because that's really whats most important to me  ), when I get home I'll see if I can't find the scene I was referring to and give you a line by line transcription of it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Raimi said:


> As I've said, I'm going by memory, but what I mentioned did occur. Just to make you happy (because that's really whats most important to me  ), when I get home I'll see if I can't find the scene I was referring to and give you a line by line transcription of it.


I can check myself - which episode did this occur in?


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> I can check myself - which episode did this occur in?


The second one perhaps, possibly the 3rd. What's her bucket is talking to Perry's character while something with the Bush administration is on the television in the background. She makes mention of how its not right to make fun of the small town but hypocrisy and power hungry something or another is just fine. It must have been the third episode. Good Hunting. If you're unsuccessful, I'll see what I can do when I get home.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

bdowell said:


> Ratings numbers (from Zap2It.com) for last nite (Monday, 10/30/2006):
> 
> Uh, I believe this is what could be termed "a clue" for NBC -- it's not the show that is the problem, it's the time slot.
> 
> As I had hoped (sorry to fans of Friday Night Lights), Friday Night Lights didn't do any better than did an episode of S60. People just aren't interested in watching NBC on Monday nights at 10pm (east time). They'd rather watch a TV show about crimes in places where there's a higher probability of seeing bikinis in the background.


Quite frankly, last night I wouldn't have watched the Resurrection let alone Friday Night Lights or S60 against the Pats/Vikes. ESPN or not, MNF is where I am on that night of the week. Hence, the Tivo.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Lori said:


> Reprieve or no, this feels like Firefly all over again.


Great minds think alike? 

 Studio 60: the first six episodes (spoilers)

Jan


----------



## Paul Wozniak (Jun 5, 2006)

Dont have time to read the whole thread, but I just want to say that Eli Wallach was outstanding as the old writer. Maybe someday this man will get the recognition he so dearly deserves.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

katbug said:


> Aha! I've got the winning formula! Sorkin doing a show about the inner-workings of a reality TV show! YES!!! It's a hit waiting to happen!! :up: :up: lmao


Actually I think that could be an awesome show if done right.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Or we pay attention.


Although all evidence on TV Show Talk would support the contrary.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

marksman said:


> Although all evidence on TV Show Talk would support the contrary.


I didn't say to WHAT we are paying attention.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

I think Studio 60 is decent, but not without it's problems. Given the expectations I had going in, I'm slightly disappointed, but still watching. That said, I wouldn't be terribly upset if it got the ax, as I feel like I've got too many shows as it is and it would save me from having to cutback on my own. That said, here's the biggest problems as I see them:

1) Although I recognize that it's a drama, I think the audience is expected to suspend disbelief a little too much by the unfunny skits. We keep getting hammered with how great a job Matt and Danny are doing, that the show's ratings are improving, and that the show within a show now has quality writing coming out the wazoo, but the sketches they've shown us are actually worse than what's currently on SNL (which is saying quite alot). This is something that maybe shouldn't bother me, but does, and it seems to bother everyone I know who watches Studio 60. I remember during the second episode thinking that with all the build up they were giving the opening sketch, they better come up with something great. The song they did was somewhat amusing, but certainly not worthy of the buildup it got, and that's probably the *best* skit they've done to date. The montage from episode three was horrendous (Pimp my Trike is supposed to be groundbreaking?). Even the one liners they've discussed for the news seem stale. Like I said, I know this is nitpicky, but to me it's a major distraction when the entire concept is turning the show around and improving the quality of network television. What they've show us is simply more of the same. It undermines the entire premise, particularly when everyone on the show keeps talking about how funny the skits are.

2) We haven't spent enough time with these characters for some of the stories to really strike a chord. For me, the episode where Christine Lahti's character interviews Matt and Harriet and tries to find out more about their history would have been much more effective had I had more time to actually care whether or not the two of them got back together. Over time, I'm sure we'd be given those reasons, but not yet. Would have worked better in season two (assuming there is a season two). Another example was the recent story line with Matt and D.L. Hugely's character (can't remember the name), in which they went to see the African American comedian. D.L.'s problem with the make-up of the writing staff was out of left field. I don't know that it was even hinted at in previous episodes.

3) The show's a little too preachy for my taste (not saying it's exlusively preachy from a liberal or conservative standpoint, it preaches both ways at times). This might seem out of left field, but let me use David Kelly shows as an example of the problem I'm having. I know when watching a new David Kelly show that it will be great for the first year, but by part way through year two, the minor quirks that once made the characters so endearing to me will be pushed to the forefront. At that point, the show, for me, gets obnoxious and I tune out. For me, this held true with Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and the Practice. With Sorkin, it's not character quirks, but preachiness (hate to be redundant, but it's the word that best fits what I'm getting at). It took me several seasons of West Wing, however, before it go to be too much for me. With Studio 60, we're getting awfully close and its only four or five episodes in.

4) Enough with Jordan's self-satisfied smirks after the end of every conversation she has.

Re-reading this, I'm sure it seems that I hate this show. I don't. Like I said, I do enjoy it and think it has potential based on the talent both behind and in front of the camera. Because of this and the limited amount of quality programming, I can overlook my minor gripes. Remember, however, that this is not a case of viewers not finding a new show, but of viewers sampling the first couple of episodes and then bailing. My points are merely to explain how I can see why those people might have tuned out.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I find it mildly amusing that people are taking exception to attacks on Extreme Christians as being a liberal predjudice when the reality is, for anyone, irregardless of their religious or political leanings, knows the group that most often has protested and taken issues with television shows are extreme right christian groups. Since the show is about making a TV Show, it is reasonable to think it might address the issue.

So are they being bashed simply for being accurate?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

3D said:


> Another example was the recent story line with Matt and D.L. Hugely's character (can't remember the name), in which they went to see the African American comedian. D.L.'s problem with the make-up of the writing staff was out of left field. I don't know that it was even hinted at in previous episodes.


You missed the whole "I can't do the voices" speech from Simon, where he was complaining that Rickey and Ron wanted him to send up Bill Cosby?

"Jell-o pudding pops!"



Jan


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

marksman said:


> I find it mildly amusing that people are taking exception to attacks on Extreme Christians as being a liberal predjudice when the reality is, for anyone, irregardless of their religious or political leanings, knows the group that most often has protested and taken issues with television shows are extreme right christian groups. Since the show is about making a TV Show, it is reasonable to think it might address the issue.
> 
> So are they being bashed simply for being accurate?


To be completely honest, the "Crazy Christians" plotline isn't one of the reasons I disliked the show. It's the most obvious political aspect and so thats what everybody has glommed onto (and I haven't given them a lot more to go on because frankly I just don't remember each political jab that annoyed me).


----------



## smickola (Nov 17, 2004)

I've enjoyed the show so far, but it doesn't ring true to me. Sorkin's raid fire, one witty enjoinder after another style fit well with the West Wing...in that setting, I expected the characters to be smart, well informed, well rounded types that could carry on that type of conversation. But Hollywood writers? Look at the crap that comes out for movies and television...zero originality, take no chances, copy anything that is working ad nauseum, aim for the lowest common denominator. Sorkin himself skewers the medium every chance he can get...yet we're supposed to believe that the writers of a sketch comedy show banter on like nuclear physicists all the time?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

< hijack >


marksman said:


> I find it mildly amusing that people are taking exception to attacks on Extreme Christians as being a liberal predjudice when the reality is, for anyone, *irregardless* of their religious or political leanings, knows the group that most often has protested and taken issues with television shows are extreme right christian groups. Since the show is about making a TV Show, it is reasonable to think it might address the issue.
> 
> So are they being bashed simply for being accurate?


<pet peeve> *Irregardless.* </pet peeve>

LOL! Oh, how I *hate* this word! I have a co-worker that uses it in formal documentation all the time, and it drives me crazy. I can live with it here, where we're all casual and breezy (the very epitome of "informal"), but it seems I can't escape being reminded of my co-worker! 


dictionary.com said:


> Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.


< /hijack >


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

smickola said:


> I've enjoyed the show so far, but it doesn't ring true to me. Sorkin's raid fire, one witty enjoinder after another style fit well with the West Wing...in that setting, I expected the characters to be smart, well informed, well rounded types that could carry on that type of conversation. But Hollywood writers? Look at the crap that comes out for movies and television...zero originality, take no chances, copy anything that is working ad nauseum, aim for the lowest common denominator. Sorkin himself skewers the medium every chance he can get...yet we're supposed to believe that the writers of a sketch comedy show banter on like nuclear physicists all the time?


You've obviously never spent time with TV writers. Every single one I've ever spent time with sounded just like these people.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

smickola said:


> I've enjoyed the show so far, but it doesn't ring true to me. Sorkin's raid fire, one witty enjoinder after another style fit well with the West Wing...in that setting, I expected the characters to be smart, well informed, well rounded types that could carry on that type of conversation. But Hollywood writers? Look at the crap that comes out for movies and television...zero originality, take no chances, copy anything that is working ad nauseum, aim for the lowest common denominator. Sorkin himself skewers the medium every chance he can get...yet we're supposed to believe that the writers of a sketch comedy show banter on like nuclear physicists all the time?


You don't believe comedians can do rapid fire, witty rejoinders one after another?

Haven't you ever watched Robin Williams when he's doing his free-association stuff? He leaps from one joke to the next like lightning.

Just because the only thing that _sells_ is the crap, that doesn't mean the writers aren't capable of writing much better.

Jan


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> You missed the whole "I can't do the voices" speech from Simon, where he was complaining that Rickey and Ron wanted him to send up Bill Cosby?
> 
> "Jell-o pudding pops!"
> 
> ...


Now that you mention it, I do remember that. Although I still think they could have laid a little more groundwork for that storyline, I stand corrected.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

smickola said:


> I've enjoyed the show so far, but it doesn't ring true to me. Sorkin's raid fire, one witty enjoinder after another style fit well with the West Wing...in that setting, I expected the characters to be smart, well informed, well rounded types that could carry on that type of conversation. But Hollywood writers? Look at the crap that comes out for movies and television...zero originality, take no chances, copy anything that is working ad nauseum, aim for the lowest common denominator. Sorkin himself skewers the medium every chance he can get...yet we're supposed to believe that the writers of a sketch comedy show banter on like nuclear physicists all the time?


We're talking about specific Hollywood writers.

Writers on The Simpsons, Conan and other comedy shows are notorious for being Ivy League educated.

Conan in fact went to harvard.
Al Jean one of the bigwigs on The Simpsons went to Harvard.

The simpson's has made numerous jokes at the expense of their Harvard writers. I think Krusty's writers are all from harvard as an example.

-smak-


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

3D said:


> Now that you mention it, I do remember that. Although I still think they could have laid a little more groundwork for that storyline, I stand corrected.


I take your point -- but people are already complaining that 'nothing happens' and Sorkin is spending too much time setting things up and not doing stuff, so what can the poor guy do? 

Jan


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

I've just gotta ask...doesn't anyone watch tv for entertainment anymore?  

I'm apparently in the minority here (please don't read this as my being stupid or ignorant, which could be the case, lol), but I honestly haven't even noticed politics or any other form of bias in this show. I'm watching to be entertained, not influenced, so I'm not getting any brainwashing messages from this show. To me it's about interactions and relationships between a lot of very different people with different viewpoints, but that's where the genius of the show is...it's entertaining, which it would discontinue being if I felt like I needed to pick it apart and see agendas hidden in it each week. I guess blissful ignorance is my favorite way to enjoy tv shows.

Ok, that's all. "We now return you to your previously scheduled dissection."


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

katbug said:


> I've just gotta ask...doesn't anyone watch tv for entertainment anymore?
> 
> I'm apparently in the minority here (please don't read this as my being stupid or ignorant, which could be the case, lol), but I honestly haven't even noticed politics or any other form of bias in this show. I'm watching to be entertained, not influenced, so I'm not getting any brainwashing messages from this show. To me it's about interactions and relationships between a lot of very different people with different viewpoints, but that's where the genius of the show is...it's entertaining, which it would discontinue being if I felt like I needed to pick it apart and see agendas hidden in it each week. I guess blissful ignorance is my favorite way to enjoy tv shows.
> 
> Ok, that's all. "We now return you to your previously scheduled dissection."


I'm with you on that one Katbug. Entertainment first. I don't really dissect, nor do I assume that some writer or producer is pushing some agenda off on me.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

katbug said:


> I've just gotta ask...doesn't anyone watch tv for entertainment anymore?
> 
> I'm apparently in the minority here (please don't read this as my being stupid or ignorant, which could be the case, lol), but I honestly haven't even noticed politics or any other form of bias in this show. I'm watching to be entertained, not influenced, so I'm not getting any brainwashing messages from this show. To me it's about interactions and relationships between a lot of very different people with different viewpoints, but that's where the genius of the show is...it's entertaining, which it would discontinue being if I felt like I needed to pick it apart and see agendas hidden in it each week. I guess blissful ignorance is my favorite way to enjoy tv shows.
> 
> Ok, that's all. "We now return you to your previously scheduled dissection."


Well said! :up:

The show is beautifully crafted, and the attention to detail about the workings of network broadcasting is compelling. This is a fictional show that deals with adult characters and complex ideas. It seems some prefer the majority of TV fare with cartoon-characters and comic-book stories that will make no waves. Let's leave the few adult programs alone -- they won't last long anyway...


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

katbug said:


> I've just gotta ask...doesn't anyone watch tv for entertainment anymore?
> 
> I'm apparently in the minority here (please don't read this as my being stupid or ignorant, which could be the case, lol), but I honestly haven't even noticed politics or any other form of bias in this show. I'm watching to be entertained, not influenced, so I'm not getting any brainwashing messages from this show. To me it's about interactions and relationships between a lot of very different people with different viewpoints, but that's where the genius of the show is...it's entertaining, which it would discontinue being if I felt like I needed to pick it apart and see agendas hidden in it each week. I guess blissful ignorance is my favorite way to enjoy tv shows.
> 
> Ok, that's all. "We now return you to your previously scheduled dissection."


I agree totally with what you've said here. I don't watch network TV to be indoctrinated, just entertained.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

You know, I stopped watching West Wing the last couple of years because the politics got to be too much for me. I really don't think Studio 60 is bad at all. IMO, the extreme wackos and their silly campaigns to control what we watch on TV with their being "offended" by things they never even saw in the first place deserve to be made fun of.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

smak said:


> Conan in fact went to harvard.
> Al Jean one of the bigwigs on The Simpsons went to Harvard.


Yup. Quite a few young writers got started at The Harvard Lampoon.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

drew2k said:


> < hijack >
> <pet peeve> *Irregardless.* </pet peeve>
> 
> LOL! Oh, how I *hate* this word! I have a co-worker that uses it in formal documentation all the time, and it drives me crazy. I can live with it here, where we're all casual and breezy (the very epitome of "informal"), but it seems I can't escape being reminded of my co-worker!
> < /hijack >


Thank you. You saved me the effort.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=50417



> A REPORT BY A FOXNEWS.COM columnist that NBC's heavily promoted "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" would be dropped from the schedule created a frisson Monday, but appears to be premature.
> 
> An NBC representative said in an email the show hasn't been cancelled. The rep wrote: "It is profitable at this point." In fact, the network has ordered three more episodes of the show.
> 
> "Studio 60" is scheduled to air next Monday in its usual 10 p.m. slot, although a boffo performance by "Friday Night Lights" in the slot last night--where it was placed for a trial run--could potentially change things. But a more likely scenario would be a time-period change for "Studio 60"--not a retirement--a source said.


Hopefully they'll at least stick with it for awhile.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

devdogaz said:


> http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=50417
> 
> Hopefully they'll at least stick with it for awhile.


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4533568&&#post4533568


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Ordering 3 more episodes is not exactly a major comittment. That statement would be a lot less hollow if they had ordered 13 more to finish out the season, IMO.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cherry ghost said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4533568&&#post4533568


My bad. I never clicked on that link because I thought it was just about the denials on Entertainment Tonight.

I would be nice if when people posted a link to something, they'd also at least post a the main details of what's at the link. I know we're not supposed to post entire articles, but quotes and snippets are OK.


----------



## Zzot (Feb 9, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> On Monday, Heroes had 14.3 million viewers. The substantial drop off with 'Studio 60' is probably the last nail in its coffin.


Why does leadin have anything to do with anything? I have a remote control...I can change the channel quite easily. Actually, I have a DVR and rarely watch anything live, so I could care less about what show was on before or after any other show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zzot said:


> Why does leadin have anything to do with anything? I have a remote control...I can change the channel quite easily. Actually, I have a DVR and rarely watch anything live, so I could care less about what show was on before or after any other show.


From the network's perspective, every timeslot has a perceived value. A timeslot opposite a huge ratings grabber is not as valuable, and a timeslot following a hit is perceived as very valuable. The viewers of one show on a network are supposed to carry over to the next show, at least in network exec's minds. They know you have the ability to change the channel, but they expect that you'll stick around because their programming is superior. The problem is, when they put incompatible shows back to back, like Heroes and S60, it's error on the exec's part, not on the part of the viewer.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

katbug said:


> I've just gotta ask...doesn't anyone watch tv for entertainment anymore?
> 
> I'm apparently in the minority here (please don't read this as my being stupid or ignorant, which could be the case, lol), but I honestly haven't even noticed politics or any other form of bias in this show.


I don't get it... why can't we do both? I'm entertained by the show and I notice the bias. Why is that so wrong?


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

It's not so wrong, it just seems like people are dissecting it (and lots of other shows lately) more than enjoying it. I don't think I personally could enjoy a show if I was watching it so closely for agendas, bias, or errors...it would take the enjoyment out of the show for me. If others can do both, all the more power to 'em. All of the discussion about the show's hidden agendas were started by people who quit watching 'cuz they didn't enjoy the show due to the agendas, etc...so they chose the dissection over the entertainment. That's all ;0)


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

katbug said:


> It's not so wrong, it just seems like people are dissecting it (and lots of other shows lately) more than enjoying it. I don't think I personally could enjoy a show if I was watching it so closely for agendas, bias, or errors...it would take the enjoyment out of the show for me. If others can do both, all the more power to 'em. All of the discussion about the show's hidden agendas were started by people who quit watching 'cuz they didn't enjoy the show due to the agendas, etc...so they chose the dissection over the entertainment. That's all ;0)


katbug, I could NOT agree with you more.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

devdogaz said:


> > A REPORT BY A FOXNEWS.COM columnist that NBC's heavily promoted "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" would be dropped from the schedule created a *frisson* Monday, but appears to be premature.
> 
> 
> http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=50417
> ...


*Frisson.* That's such an elitist liberal word... 

LOL! Just kidding!


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

katbug said:


> It's not so wrong, it just seems like people are dissecting it (and lots of other shows lately) more than enjoying it. I don't think I personally could enjoy a show if I was watching it so closely for agendas, bias, or errors...it would take the enjoyment out of the show for me. If others can do both, all the more power to 'em. All of the discussion about the show's hidden agendas were started by people who quit watching 'cuz they didn't enjoy the show due to the agendas, etc...so they chose the dissection over the entertainment. That's all ;0)


I also agree with you. I don't care about the political motivations are behind the show, as long as I *enjoy* the show.

Whenever I hear "Peace Train" on the radio, I enjoy it. That won't stop because Cat Stevens converted to a new religion and made some political statements....


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

katbug said:


> It's not so wrong, it just seems like people are dissecting it (and lots of other shows lately) more than enjoying it. I don't think I personally could enjoy a show if I was watching it so closely for agendas, bias, or errors...it would take the enjoyment out of the show for me. If others can do both, all the more power to 'em. All of the discussion about the show's hidden agendas were started by people who quit watching 'cuz they didn't enjoy the show due to the agendas, etc...so they chose the dissection over the entertainment. That's all ;0)


As far as I know there's no way for me to turn off the part in my brain that notices obvious political analogy or commentary. If there were, I might not consider V for Vendetta to be one of the worst movies in history.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

katbug said:


> It's not so wrong, it just seems like people are dissecting it (and lots of other shows lately) more than enjoying it. I don't think I personally could enjoy a show if I was watching it so closely for agendas, bias, or errors...it would take the enjoyment out of the show for me. If others can do both, all the more power to 'em. All of the discussion about the show's hidden agendas were started by people who quit watching 'cuz they didn't enjoy the show due to the agendas, etc...so they chose the dissection over the entertainment. That's all ;0)


I can understand your point. However, I don't attempt to dissect the show. I do closely follow politics, and as a result many things simply jump out at me. I tried enjoying S60 which is why I gave it 3 episodes even though I am completely aware of the writers political viewpoint. Unfortunately, I was not able to enjoy it due to some of its content. There's a reason Sorkin included those things. Whether he was deliberately trying to make a point (which is what I believe), or whether it is simply a result of his personal outlook, it is there.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> As far as I know there's no way for me to turn off the part in my brain that notices obvious political analogy or commentary. If there were, I might not consider V for Vendetta to be one of the worst movies in history.


Agreed.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> As far as I know there's no way for me to turn off the part in my brain that notices obvious political analogy or commentary. If there were, I might not consider V for Vendetta to be one of the worst movies in history.


Someday we'll have to talk about that, since I absolutely LOVE "V for Vendetta", and probably for the same reasons you hate it. That's a conversation for another thread, however.

I DO want to point out that I find it odd that Raimi would criticize Studio 60 for it's portrayal of Christians when it has probably the strongest Christian character on any mainstream show I've seen in years. Harriet not only is Christian, but willing to discuss her faith and how it gives her strength, AND how it's not in fashion in Hollywood. You cannot just ignore her wonderful line "You are from Washington and I work in Hollywood, but I assure you that in the rest of the country in between those two places the fact that I believe in a higher power would not even raise an eyebrow" (paraphrased from memory).

She's pointing out that Hollywood and Washington DC may be anti-Christian, but the core of the nation ISN'T.

Now, I'm NOT a Christian, and I can appreciate the strength of her faith and her point that most of America doesn't find her beliefs to be "odd" at all, so I'm surprised that someone who IS a Christian would be offended by "the way Christians are presented". I suspect, instead, that they are offended by the opinions of a character on the show who does not particularly like Christians, not the show itself, which as far as I can tell, seems to be giving equal time to both points of view, a rarity on TV these days.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Ereth said:


> Someday we'll have to talk about that, since I absolutely LOVE "V for Vendetta", and probably for the same reasons you hate it. That's a conversation for another thread, however.
> 
> I DO want to point out that I find it odd that Raimi would criticize Studio 60 for it's portrayal of Christians when it has probably the strongest Christian character on any mainstream show I've seen in years. Harriet not only is Christian, but willing to discuss her faith and how it gives her strength, AND how it's not in fashion in Hollywood. You cannot just ignore her wonderful line "You are from Washington and I work in Hollywood, but I assure you that in the rest of the country in between those two places the fact that I believe in a higher power would not even raise an eyebrow" (paraphrased from memory).
> 
> ...


I've already stated that the Christian aspect isn't what really annoyed me about the show but that I merely mentioned it because I couldn't remember each political jab that annoyed me without watching again. I viewed Harriet as more of a "token" religious character but I think your right that she is portrayed better than other Christian characters I've seen (in fact I can't think of a Christian character on TV that I've seen that wasn't the evil antagonist). I'm not a Christian either, so perhaps that is why this aspect of the show didn't particularly bother me.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Raimi said:


> I can't think of a Christian character on TV that I've seen that wasn't the evil antagonist


Ned Flanders.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Raimi said:


> ... in fact I can't think of a Christian character on TV that I've seen that wasn't the evil antagonist...


The Camden family from _7th Heaven_ is the only that really comes to mind. I guess whether that show is "mainstream" is another discussion altogether.

As for the Harriet character, I am a Christian and I find it rather refreshing that she is such a strong character and treated with respect rather than pity/contempt/smugness. It's not much, but it's far more than I expect from most television. If the show lasts, however, I'd prefer it if her faith wasn't such a big part of the storyline - I'd rather it just be "there" and accepted for what it is rather than pushed to the forefront so often.


----------



## Tweety_pbe98 (Dec 16, 2002)

Raimi said:


> ...in fact I can't think of a Christian character on TV that I've seen that wasn't the evil antagonist...


Jed Bartlet


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Tweety_pbe98 said:


> Jed Bartlet


At least Sorkin is consistent with the "token" religious person. 

I stand corrected, there is one family, and two other religious characters on tv in the last 5 years that aren't "evil" (and yes, I'll even count Flanders).


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Raimi said:


> At least Sorkin is consistent with the "token" religious person.
> 
> I stand corrected, there is one family, and two other religious characters on tv in the last 5 years that aren't "evil" (and yes, I'll even count Flanders).


Try turning on the TV next month. You'll be hard pressed not to see Santa Claus all day every day on every channel.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Rescue Me had Jesus as a recuring character. If I understand correctly, he is highly regarded in Christian circles.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

aindik said:


> Try turning on the TV next month. You'll be hard pressed not to see Santa Claus all day every day on every channel.


I could argue that Santa Claus is more of a cultural entity now as opposed to a religious one but I won't. On a side note, when I was flipping through the channels a couple days before Halloween I stumbled across "Santa's Slay" where Santa was killing all the boys and girls that wouldn't stop sending him letters.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Martin Tupper said:


> Rescue Me had Jesus as a recuring character. If I understand correctly, he is highly regarded in Christian circles.


Ok, we'll add the hallucination Jesus to the list of positive religious characters.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

One of the central characters in _Everwood_ was a fairly devout Christian (Harold Abbott) and that show routinely depicted people going to church and discussing topics that touched on religious beliefs.

I never understood why that show wasn't embraced more by the "Christian" groups who are so quick to complain about all the stuff on TV that offends them. It was a great show that allowed the characters to have disagreements but it never came off as preachy.

The reason TV stays away from depicting characters of _any_ devout religious faith (not just Christian) is that any discussion of religion is bound to offend someone. So the conventional wisdom is that it's better to avoid it altogether. It's not that Hollywood is "anti-Christian" so much that they are risk-averse. Sorkin doesn't seem too afraid of offending people, I'll give him that.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> One of the central characters in _Everwood_


The first time I read that, I thought it said "Deadwood."



Magnolia88 said:


> I never understood why that show wasn't embraced more by the "Christian" groups who are so quick to complain about all the stuff on TV that offends them.


Then I read that. You can imagine my shock.


----------



## MerlinMacuser (Jan 4, 2004)

I can save this show with just two words: Nude Mud Wrestling. Oh, right that's three words. 

Ok, then just Nude Wrestling. Yes, that's the ticket. Or bowling. Either wrestling or bowling...just make it nude, or naked either one.

I am so depressed. This was/is the best show on the commercial networks. It'll probably win awards after it's canceled. Bummer.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

MerlinMacuser said:


> I can save this show with just two words: Nude Mud Wrestling. Oh, right that's three words.
> 
> Ok, then just Nude Wrestling. Yes, that's the ticket. Or bowling. Either wrestling or bowling...just make it nude, or naked either one.
> 
> I am so depressed. This was/is the best show on the commercial networks. It'll probably win awards after it's canceled. Bummer.


I'd happily jump on the Nude Wrestling bandwagon.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

aindik said:


> The first time I read that, I thought it said "Deadwood."


LOL. That sort of reinforces my point: it's the "shocking" and "offensive" shows that get all the press, while a good "wholesome" show like _Everwood_ gets ignored by the press and the audience.

The "Christian" groups can complain all they want about the sex and violence on TV, but that's what people want to watch. If all the people claiming to be "Christians" were watching _Everwood_, it would still be on the air. It's the non-stop sex of GA and the non-stop violence of CSI that people want. (With a little ballroom dancing on the side.)

Which is sort of why S60 made a point of talking about these groups that spearhead the complaints and boycotts. They represent a tiny percentage of the viewing public but they wield a ridiculous amount of influence on the FCC.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Magnolia88 said:


> One of the central characters in _Everwood_ [..]


_*Burn in hell WB CW!*_


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> I can check myself - which episode did this occur in?


Any luck? I got home and went to check myself and realized I didn't still have the show on my Tivo. So I guess it's up to you to verify the info.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Raimi said:


> Any luck? I got home and went to check myself and realized I didn't still have the show on my Tivo. So I guess it's up to you to verify the info.


No, I didn't have the time yet... still plan to.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> No, I didn't have the time yet... still plan to.


Sounds good.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Ned Flanders.


but Ned is a real ninny.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Raimi said:


> At least Sorkin is consistent with the "token" religious person.
> 
> I stand corrected, there is one family, and two other religious characters on tv in the last 5 years that aren't "evil" (and yes, I'll even count Flanders).


President Bartlett wasn't the only religious person on The West Wing. Don't forget about Toby. There were also conservatives portrayed in a favorable way. Ainsley Hays for one.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

There have also been at least two shows in recent years - other than _7th Heaven_ -- that revolved around members of the clergy (_Nothing Sacred_ and _Book of Daniel_). But both of them received lots of protests and didn't last long. So the message to the TV networks: don't portray _anyone_ who is devoutly religious because many people will be offended.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Don't forget about Toby.


Toby only counts if we've completely transitioned from "Christians" to "religious people." Something tells me the people complaining about an absence of religious characters on TV didn't exactly have Tobias Ziegler in mind.

As for another religious Christian on TV, there's Mr. Eko on Lost. Though, he's also a former murdering gang leader, so there's that.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Magnolia88 said:


> _Book of Daniel_


Thanks for the reminder... the DVD set was released in late September; ordered.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Raimi said:


> I can't think of a Christian character on TV that I've seen that wasn't the evil antagonist[].


Please, that is just ridiculous. I don't even see how you can say that with a straight face. Just like in American life, the majority of characters on American TV are Christians of some sort. It may not be a featured aspect of the show, or a highlighted element of the character, but it's very commonly assumed or mentioned in the background.

Nearly every show on TV has a holiday-themed episode in December that features families celebrating Christmas, including showing or referencing attending Church. Zillions of TV shows feature weddings occurring in churches and/or with religious officiants. We also commonly see baptisms, communions, Catholic last rites, religious funerals, and all kinds of other portrayals and references to people attending Church or being Christians. We see kids saying Christian prayers at night, people saying Grace before eating, people praying to Jesus in times of trouble, references to Easter and Christmas, references to going to Church on Sunday.

These things all are sprinkled thoughout the fabric of TV life, just as they are in real life. Some of the Christian characters are good, some are bad, most are mixed -- again, just like real life. If you think all the Christians on TV are being shown as evil, you're just not paying attention.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

aindik said:


> Toby only counts if we've completely transitioned from "Christians" to "religious people."


Did you READ the post I quoted?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Did you READ the post I quoted?


Yep. I was commenting on what was probably _that post's_ looseness with the language (i.e. not saying what he probably really means). Not yours.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

aindik said:


> Yep. I was commenting on what was probably _that post's_ looseness with the language (i.e. not saying what he probably really means). Not yours.


 He's also used the word "religious" in some posts just before that one about Bartlett.

But yes, if he got loose, he got loose. What can I do? I can only comment on the words in the post I quote.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> He's also used the word "religious" in some posts just before that one about Bartlett.
> 
> But yes, if he got loose, he got loose. What can I do? I can only comment on the words in the post I quote.


I can only guess, but my guess is, he meant "religious" as a synonym for "Christian," which it is not. That's my guess because he seems to have switched terms mid-stream and used the two interchangeably. I was simply calling him on that.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Ruth said:


> Some of the Christian characters are good, some are bad, most are mixed -- again, just like real life. If you think all the Christians on TV are being shown as evil, you're just not paying attention.


Indeed. I totally agree with your entire post, but it also occurred to me that another new show is full of _overtly_ religious characters: _Friday Night Lights_. That show is full of "good Christian folks" talking about their faith and going to church and openly praying and stuff like that. Yet again, another show that nobody pays any attention to.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Ainsley Hays for one.


Oh, I loved Ainsley!


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

It appears to me that I am wrong when it comes to the portrayal of Christians on television. I don't mind admitting that many of you have made me re-evaluate my statement. I'm a bonehead but it was a fun discussion nonetheless. 

Of course this doesn't change my opinion of S60 or its political bias. After all, I've already repeatedly stated that the portrayal of Christians in the show wasn't what bothered me.


----------



## MerlinMacuser (Jan 4, 2004)

Please, people. Can we stop all the talk about religion and get back to the nude wrestling discussion! This show is already on life support and the shark is waiting in the wings....

(mixing multiple metephors there, hope you noticed)


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

EW's Popwatch blog talks about the kerfuffle over the premature report of S60's alleged demise.



> Fox News (in the person of less-than-oracular Roger Friedman) preemptively announced the shows cancellation, and got a pop on the wrist from its old adversary, reality. Kevin Reilly, president of the network, says hes 100% behind the show -- thats probably not exactly true, either, but he's sure putting his money where his mouth is: Studio 60's on every Monday during November sweeps. Meanwhile, as media vultures split hairs and NBC honcho Jeff Zucker decides how many Strindberg references can dance on the pin of his head, YOUR BROTHER IS STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF AFGHANISTAN.





> NBC says Studio 60 has a future as long as it stays above a 3 share. (To put this in perspective: A 3 share is whats left on the kleenex when NCIS blows its nose.)


I didn't see this linked yet, but apologies if this has already been mentioned.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Wow, a 3 share. I can;t beleive that any show gets much less than that on a network.


----------



## battleaxe (Nov 3, 2006)

I thought this show was decent at first, but it seemed like a one trick pony...I'm not going to be too disappointed if its finished.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

The latest TV Guide says that the average income of _Studio 60_ viewers is $66,000, by far the largest of any network show. Of course, there's no chart showing what the average incomes for other shows are, and no explanation for how this information was obtained, but if true, it seems to lend some credence to the "alpha viewer" idea.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> The latest TV Guide says that the average income of _Studio 60_ viewers is $66,000, by far the largest of any network show. Of course, there's no chart showing what the average incomes for other shows are, and no explanation for how this information was obtained, but if true, it seems to lend some credence to the "alpha viewer" idea.


The article that I linked earlier (where I got in trouble for smeeking because it had already been posted) actually said it's 4th this season in average viewer income. However, it didn't say what the top three are.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

devdogaz said:


> The article that I linked earlier (where I got in trouble for smeeking because it had already been posted) actually said it's 4th this season in average viewer income. However, it didn't say what the top three are.


I would bet that _The Office_ is at or near the top as well. It's not at the top of the ratings for overall viewers, but one of the reasons it's considered such a huge hit at NBC is that it rates very highly with young _affluent_ viewers.

And "affluent" viewers isn't the same concept as the Alpha Consumer, but they're similar. Young affluent viewers are also prized by advertisers, but "Alpha Consumer" is a term of art in marketing meaning "hip trendspotters." People who catch on to the "next big thing" before other people and set the trends instead of follow them.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> The article that I linked earlier (where I got in trouble for smeeking because it had already been posted) actually said it's 4th this season in average viewer income. However, it didn't say what the top three are.


I bet 60 Minutes is up there.

Which is why income isn't the only important measure. Advertisers don't care about people 55+ even though they have lots of money. Lots of money is only half the equation. You also have to be susceptible to change your behavior based on advertising, or it doesn't matter how much money you have.

Also, I bet the "average income" for Warren Buffett's home movies is pretty high. Doesn't mean they should be on TV.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I really wish someone would fix the title of this thread; I can't stand typos like that.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I really wish someone would fix the title of this thread; I can't stand typos like that.


Cancullaitione ?


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

I won't be sorry to see it go as I never made it past the first episode. Watching a tv show about a tv show was just too much. I do hope they keep it on the air for all you fans in this thread though.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

kbohip said:


> I won't be sorry to see it go as I never made it past the first episode. Watching a tv show about a tv show was just too much. I do hope they keep it on the air for all you fans in this thread though.


Wow. That's such a fresh point of view I wanted to quote it for posterity.

NO one ever wants a show they don't like to stay around for the fans around here!  :up:


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Spoiler



Anyone worried about John Goodman being in this week's episode? I have always liked John Goodman, but he does have the potential to spin the entire show off it's axis and into the sun.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

marksman said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone worried about John Goodman being in this week's episode? I have always liked John Goodman, but he does have the potential to spin the entire show off it's axis and into the sun.





Spoiler



At least it's not Ted McGinley


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

marksman said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone worried about John Goodman being in this week's episode? I have always liked John Goodman, but he does have the potential to spin the entire show off it's axis and into the sun.





Spoiler



John Goodman can do Sorkinese. I'm a little more worried that this will be a little too reminiscent of the first season WW episode ("Celestial Navigation") where the staff has to go rescue the President's Supreme Court nominee from a small town jail.


----------



## CharlieW (May 30, 2001)

Spoiler



Love John Goodman.

Highly underrated actor who's work in the Coen Brothers films is always tremendous.



Just want to throw my hat in the ring as someone who has been enjoying the show. I allowed three episodes to stack up on my TiVo and watched them over this weekend and found the writing and acting to be very, very good. Sorkin is still working these characters -- letting us get to know all of them. Give him some time, this series shows a lot of promise.

More entertaining than most shows on TV, IMHO.


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

When a show like this is put up against CSI Miami it is almost bound to fail. They've already invested time and effort and money into, why not at least put it in another time slot for a few weeks?


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

It is scary that a show like CSI:Miami is doing so well. Just seems like a big bag of suck. Horrible writing, horrible characters... 

But Studio 60 seems pretty darned different than anything else on the tube now. Hope it can last


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

I just saw this thread, did not read all the responses.

My husband is going to be so upset, he watches this show every week and loves it.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Magister said:


> It is scary that a show like CSI:Miami is doing so well. Just seems like a big bag of suck. Horrible writing, horrible characters...


You left out the horrible acting by the colossally-egoistic air-time-sucking lead actor. 

Jan


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Sadara said:


> I just saw this thread, did not read all the responses.
> 
> My husband is going to be so upset, he watches this show every week and loves it.


NBC has disputed the report and says that it has no plans on canceling it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-ratings110606,0,877189.story?coll=zap-tv-ratings-headlines

S60 finished third last night with a 4.8/8 but it was not an ordinary night since ABC aired the Country Music Awards and that gave ABC many more viewers than they usually get on Mondays.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

devdogaz said:


> http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-ratings110606,0,877189.story?coll=zap-tv-ratings-headlines
> 
> S60 finished third last night with a 4.8/8 but it was not an ordinary night since ABC aired the Country Music Awards and that gave ABC many more viewers than they usually get on Mondays.


4.8 is right in line with the drop that S60 has been getting every week.

I doubt the CMAs had anything to do with it.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

The CMAs and Studio 60 don't seem the share the same demographics to me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> The CMAs and Studio 60 don't seem the share the same demographics to me.


I was simply pointing out that ABC took a larger share of viewers than usual. They never win Monday night, yet they did this week. It may not have had a large effect on S60, but it definitely had a large effect on the night's ratings.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> I was simply pointing out that ABC took a larger share of viewers than usual. They never win Monday night, yet they did this week. It may not have had a large effect on S60, but it definitely had a large effect on the night's ratings.


It may have an effect on ABC's ratings, and may have an effect on the ranking, but it shouldn't (if my demographic hypothesis is correct) have any effect on Studio 60's rating, or even their share (unless the people watching the CMAs are people who otherwise wouldn't be watching TV at all).


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

PJO1966 said:


> NBC has disputed the report and says that it has no plans on canceling it.


Thanks for the info!


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> You left out the horrible acting by the colossally-egoistic air-time-sucking lead actor.
> 
> Jan


Which is exactly the reason that no one I know personally watches it (I bailed when I saw the lead actor). I can't imagine how it's succeeding! :down: :down:


----------



## unixadm (Jan 1, 2001)

If this is cancelled, it again shows that the networks and majority of the general public don't want smart, witty and intelligent shows. Just like they cancelled "Sports Night" and left other stupid shows that were doing worse in the ratings on for another season or two.

This is a great show......I still like Sports Night better as far as the characters and the show within a show, but this has a similiar feel, fixes some of the mistakes that were made in Sports Night (1 hour, instead of 1/2 hour....no laugh track, etc) and keeps the intelligent viewer watching.

It is really sad to see that network TV has been dumbed down so much that the public can't handle a smart show. There really are very few network shows that are worth watching anymore. This is a welcome break from all the reality crap, the dozens of CSI's and clones, etc.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

Magister said:


> It is scary that a show like CSI:Miami is doing so well. Just seems like a big bag of suck. Horrible writing, horrible characters...





murgatroyd said:


> You left out the horrible acting by the colossally-egoistic air-time-sucking lead actor.





katbug said:


> Which is exactly the reason that no one I know personally watches it (I bailed when I saw the lead actor). I can't imagine how it's succeeding! :down: :down:


The beautiful thing about television is that there is something for everyone. My wife and I both watch and enjoy CSI: Miami. We both watch and enjoy Studio 60. If I could only watch one, it would be S60...but thanks to Tivo, I don't have to choose.

It is my understanding that they were going to put S60 on Thursday at 9pm, and panicked when Grey's Anatomy got moved there and came to Monday instead. It doesn't fit with Heroes as a lead-in, as others here have pointed out. Maybe it will find a home on Sundays after football season is over. Sunday at 10pm seems like a good fit...again depending on the lead-in. Just my opinion.

I love this show for the same reasons I loved West Wing and Sports Night...it gives you credit for having a brain and the ability to use it. That may be why it is losing audience...everybody needs their entertainment spoon-fed to them. And THAT is way CSI: Miami gets such good ratings.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

unixadm said:


> If this is cancelled, it again shows that the networks and majority of the general public don't want smart, witty and intelligent shows. Just like they cancelled "Sports Night" and left other stupid shows that were doing worse in the ratings on for another season or two.
> 
> This is a great show......I still like Sports Night better as far as the characters and the show within a show, but this has a similiar feel, fixes some of the mistakes that were made in Sports Night (1 hour, instead of 1/2 hour....no laugh track, etc) and keeps the intelligent viewer watching.
> 
> It is really sad to see that network TV has been dumbed down so much that the public can't handle a smart show. There really are very few network shows that are worth watching anymore. This is a welcome break from all the reality crap, the dozens of CSI's and clones, etc.


It doesn't show anything of the sort even if it is cancelled. There are plenty of intelligent and witty shows, plenty of comedies without laugh tracks, etc. TV has not been dumbed down compared to the past. Are you going to tell me that Full House is smarter than most current sitcoms? Knight Rider is more intelligent than modern action dramas? Do you look fondly back on baywatch and the avengers for their intelligence and wit?


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> It doesn't show anything of the sort even if it is cancelled. There are plenty of intelligent and witty shows, plenty of comedies without laugh tracks, etc. TV has not been dumbed down compared to the past. Are you going to tell me that Full House is smarter than most current sitcoms? Knight Rider is more intelligent than modern action dramas? Do you look fondly back on baywatch and the avengers for their intelligence and wit?


What the hell is wrong with you? The Avengers was wit and intelligence personified. Smart, stylish, and a little bit sexy too. I liked your argument until you brought that up.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

If NBC cancels this show, it will show just how badly they are run. I'd love to see HBO pick this show up, and then really have a hey-day about NBC through the episodes. Now that would be sweet justice.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

HomieG said:


> If NBC cancels this show, it will show just how badly they are run. I'd love to see HBO pick this show up, and then really have a hey-day about NBC through the episodes. Now that would be sweet justice.


If NBC canceled it, HBO or Showtime could pick it up and then have NBS cancel it and HBO or Showtime pick it up. And Nations.


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

dswallow said:


> If NBC canceled it, HBO or Showtime could pick it up and then have NBS cancel it and HBO or Showtime pick it up. And Nations.


The show is way way to expensive for HBO/showtime to pick up. If the network gives the show a fair chance I can't fault them for cancelling an expensive show that is not performing in the ratings. It is when a network cancells a show after 2-3 episodes that drives me nuts.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

HomieG said:


> If NBC cancels this show, it will show just how badly they are run...


How so? The show is expensive and is not drawing viewers. It has lost nearly half it's audience since the premiere.

From wiki:


```
1 	"Pilot" 	        September 18, 2006 	Monday 10:00PM 	2006-2007 	8.6 	14 	13.14 	# 22
2 	"The Cold Open" 	September 25, 2006 	Monday 10:00PM 	2006-2007 	7.5 	12 	10.82 	# 33
3 	"The Focus Group" 	October 2, 2006 	Monday 10:00PM 	2006-2007 	6.0 	10 	8.85 	# 47
4 	"The West Coast Delay" 	October 9, 2006 	Monday 10:00PM 	2006-2007 	5.8 	9 	8.66 	# 51
5 	"The Long Lead Story" 	October 16, 2006 	Monday 10:00PM 	2006-2007 	5.3 	8 	7.74 	# 55
6 	"The Wrap Party" 	October 23, 2006 	Monday 10:00PM 	2006-2007 	5.1 	8 	7.72 	# 60
```
devdogaz posted last nights rating/share (4.8/8) earlier.

It had viewers to start and couldn't hold them. How does that show that NBC is run badly?


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

DougF said:


> How does that show that NBC is run badly?


NBC is in THIRD place overall this season. Not just one show caused that. It's a sign that their strategy is flawed. I don't think the network set out to be #3 this season. It also is contributing less and less to GE's bottom line, year-over-year. I wouldn't quite call that a well run network.

Viewers (in millions) that each network averaged per hour of prime time, for last week and for the season:
Network Last week	Season to date
CBS 12.53 12.78
ABC 11.25 11.68
NBC 9.92 10.44


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DougF said:


> It had viewers to start and couldn't hold them. How does that show that NBC is run badly?


Well, for one thing they're not sending squads of armed men out to hold Nielsen families hostage for an hour Monday nights. To me, that shows a total lack of commitment on NBC's part.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Cancel the Funeral:
'Studio 60' Isn't Heading Off Into the Sunset Just Yet
By Ray Richmond The Hollywood Reporter in his blog Past Deadline Nov. 7, 2006

"Despite the assurances from those in-the-know around the blogosphere that the struggling freshman NBC hour "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" was mere hours away from cancellation with its low ratings and extravagant $2 million-per-episode pricetag, the opposite now in fact appears to be true. While not yet official, key industry sources are confident that NBC will, in the next few days, announce the show's pickup for its back nine episodes (giving it a full season complement of 22) in the wake of two consecutive Mondays of upwardly-trending numbers."

http://www.pastdeadline.com/


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

balboa dave said:


> What the hell is wrong with you? The Avengers was wit and intelligence personified. Smart, stylish, and a little bit sexy too. I liked your argument until you brought that up.


+1

Jan


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> Cancel the Funeral:
> 'Studio 60' Isn't Heading Off Into the Sunset Just Yet
> By Ray Richmond The Hollywood Reporter in his blog Past Deadline Nov. 7, 2006
> 
> ...


Good news.


----------



## ruexp67 (Jan 16, 2002)

marksman said:


> Good news.


+1

I for one, really like this show, and will continue to watch.


----------



## richNYC (Feb 27, 2001)

from http://www.pastdeadline.com/ :

The Wall Street Journal wrote that when you add in people who TiVo our show and watch it later, our audience grows 18%," [Sorkin] said. "That's almost a full fifth larger. But those people don't get counted and advertisers don't care, because the assumption is TiVo viewers forward through the commercials. But that's still a very significant number for us. It would add close to two rating points to our total. People watch TV differently than they used to, and to be accurate the ratings need to begin taking that into account."


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Ratings:


> Week Episode Air Date Timeslot (EST) TV Season *Rating* Share Viewers Rank
> 1 "Pilot" September 18, 2006 Monday 10:00PM 2006-2007 *8.6* 14 13.14 # 22
> 2 "The Cold Open" September 25, 2006 Monday 10:00PM 2006-2007 *7.5* 12 10.82 # 33
> 3 "The Focus Group" October 2, 2006 Monday 10:00PM 2006-2007* 6.0* 10 8.85 # 47
> ...


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Interesting, so the share and rating have been pretty much the same for the past 3 weeks.

As for the TiVo think, that is all good for Sorkin to say that, but I don't know what the average is for tv shows. I assume they are higher (I think Studio 60 is in top 10 on TiVo Shows or at least top 20)... but perhaps it is an opportunity to pursue product placement advertising to help support the show.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

richNYC said:


> from http://www.pastdeadline.com/ :
> 
> The Wall Street Journal wrote that when you add in people who TiVo our show and watch it later, our audience grows 18%," [Sorkin] said. "That's almost a full fifth larger. But those people don't get counted and advertisers don't care, because the assumption is TiVo viewers forward through the commercials. But that's still a very significant number for us. It would add close to two rating points to our total. People watch TV differently than they used to, and to be accurate the ratings need to begin taking that into account."


That's probably true for most shows. If you add in all shows that are recorded (DVR, VCR, DVD recorder, etc.) and watched later, I'm willing to bet that overall rankings for most shows wouldn't change much. The 45th place show would probably still be around the 45th place show.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

DougF said:


> That's probably true for most shows. If you add in all shows that are recorded (DVR, VCR, DVD recorder, etc.) and watched later, I'm willing to bet that overall rankings for most shows wouldn't change much. The 45th place show would probably still be around the 45th place show.


I'd think an 18% increase across the board would require many more DVR users than are actually out there.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Who knew we had so many closet avengers fans.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

I would also bet that when a (single tuner) tivo viewer has a conflict between S60 and another show, they would likely tivo S60 and watch the other show live.

Why? Sorkin's shows have a lot of dialogue often spoken at breakneck speeds. It's nice to have the instant replay feature when the viewer needs to hear something a second time.

This might skew the numbers a bit toward S60 being tivo'd versus another show.


----------



## marrone (Oct 11, 2001)

That's a good point. Sometimes it took me a while to actually watch a West Wing, because I was too busy doing an instant replay "What the $#@! did he just mumble?"

-Mike


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Looking at TiVo's top recorded shows, Studio 60 is number 9.

So the percentage is probably significantly higher, as most of the other top 10 shows are also top 10-20 shows in the ratings.

http://www3.tivo.com/tivo-tco/top25.do?show25=seasonpass


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Wow, looking at that list, I see only 3 items on it I record, one of them being Studio 60. And of those 3, all three are top notch in my book.

Still hoping that S60 will avoid the axe. It's sad that people don't watch it as much as they should. Yet they watch Survivor or the 2 CSIs? wth


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

rkester said:


> Wow, looking at that list, I see only 3 items on it I record, one of them being Studio 60. And of those 3, all three are top notch in my book.
> 
> Still hoping that S60 will avoid the axe. It's sad that people don't watch it as much as they should. Yet they watch Survivor or the 2 CSIs? wth


9/12 for me, but my TiVo viewing counts for Nielson.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

marksman said:


> Looking at TiVo's top recorded shows, Studio 60 is number 9.
> 
> So the percentage is probably significantly higher, as most of the other top 10 shows are also top 10-20 shows in the ratings.
> 
> http://www3.tivo.com/tivo-tco/top25.do?show25=seasonpass


We record 9 of the top 10 and 16 of the top 25.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I record 3 of the top 10 and 9 of the top 25. In my house total it is 6 of the top 10 and 13 of the top 25.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I record 8 of the top 10; 15 of the top 25 here.


----------



## Mavrick22 (Feb 7, 2006)

We record 6 of the top 25.

1. Grey's Anatomy

4. House 
5. Heroes

9. Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
10. ER 

21. Las Vegas


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

Grey's Anatomy number 1? I've never seen it, I'll have to try it. Is it the number 1 show on TV?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

marksman said:


> Looking at TiVo's top recorded shows, Studio 60 is number 9.
> 
> So the percentage is probably significantly higher, as most of the other top 10 shows are also top 10-20 shows in the ratings.
> 
> http://www3.tivo.com/tivo-tco/top25.do?show25=seasonpass


Where's Lost and what was #3 previously but now out of the top 25?


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Mabes said:


> Grey's Anatomy number 1? I've never seen it, I'll have to try it. Is it the number 1 show on TV?


Have you been living under a rock???


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Eight of the top 25 for us. I only watch five of them. Well, it will be six whenever I get around to starting "Heroes". I've been saving them since the beginning just waiting for some free time to watch.


----------



## ced6 (Jul 30, 2003)

8 of the top 10 (not Oprah or Grey's Anatomy)

14 of the top 25

I'm not counting My Name is Earl even though I have a season pass, since it conflicts with 2 other shows I watch and thus isn't actually recorded.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

I record 4 of the top 25
1 Grey's Anatomy
3 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
9 Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
23 Medium

Also recording #5 Heroes but I haven't actually watched any yet.

(Used to watch at one point but no longer do)
2 Desperate Housewives
7 CSI: Miami
18 Without a Trace
21 Las Vegas


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

Wow are we couch potatoes. We record 18 of the top 22. And we are completely caught up on 13 of them.

1 Grey's Anatomy
2 Desperate Housewives
3 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
4 House
5 Heroes
6 Survivor: Cook Islands
7 CSI: Miami
9 Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
10 ER
11 Nip/Tuck 
12 Boston Legal 
13 Prison Break 
15 My Name Is Earl
17 Family Guy
18 Without a Trace 
19 Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
21 Las Vegas 
22 CSI: NY


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

PJO1966 said:


> 9/12 for me, but my TiVo viewing counts for Nielson.


How does the Neilson thing work in your household? 
Do you have a diary or a box? 
How are shows that you record get counted?
Could I ask more questions?


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

cherry ghost said:


> Where's Lost and what was #3 previously but now out of the top 25?


Something sketchy is going on there.

I thought for sure that _Lost_ was #3 the last time I checked that list. And it was a new episode last week, right? There is no way that _Medium_ gets TiVoed more than_ Lost_. I think TiVo goofed or something weird happened because I don't think that many people canceled their SP for _Lost_ in one week.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

MegaHertz67 said:


> How does the Neilson thing work in your household?
> Do you have a diary or a box?
> How are shows that you record get counted?
> Could I ask more questions?


They called me and asked if I would approve having them access my viewing habits from TiVo. I said yes. I don't have to do a thing, it all happens in the background.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> Who knew we had so many closet avengers fans.


Define "closet." Because to me, that's a snide reference to something people are afraid of admitting to in public, and that is just not the case.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

balboa dave said:


> Define "closet." Because to me, that's a snide reference to something people are afraid of admitting to in public, and that is just not the case.


Alright, I stand corrected on the avengers. Replace it with... dobie gillis? I dunno. Hopefully we can all agree anyone who likes full house is probably a closet full house fan then, right...? No?

I watch 7 of the top 25, but agree that there's no way lost is not one of the most recorded shows.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

PJO1966 said:


> They called me and asked if I would approve having them access my viewing habits from TiVo. I said yes. I don't have to do a thing, it all happens in the background.


Coooool...you have power.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

We Tivo 12 of the top 25 shows, and 7 of the top 10 (no DH, CSI:Miami, or ER, although I had an ER season pass until this summer). I used to watch DH and Las Vegas, but no longer.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

MegaHertz67 said:


> Coooool...you have power.


It just makes me happy that my viewing habits (supposedly) matter.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Four of the top 10, five of the top 25 here:

1	Grey's Anatomy 
3	CSI: Crime Scene Investigation 
4	House 
9	Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip 
16	Dancing With the Stars 

We have nuked our SP for CSI: NY (#22) this season. Just can't stand watching Gary Sinise go to waste week after week.

Jan


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Is Studio 60's cancellation still "imminent"? Have we redefined what the word "imminent" means?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Kristin from E! Online reports that NBC has given _Studio 60_ a full season order...


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

bicker said:


> Is Studio 60's cancellation still "imminent"? Have we redefined what the word "imminent" means?


Well, it seemed imminent when the thread was started. Maybe the OP can request a mod to change the title?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> Is Studio 60's cancellation still "imminent"? Have we redefined what the word "imminent" means?


No, but perhaps its _cancellaiton is, though.



Lee L said:



Well, it seemed imminent when the thread was started. Maybe the OP can request a mod to change the title?

Click to expand...

I concur, even if not for the same reason. _


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

<Borat> Looks like Studio 60 is cancelled <pause> NOT!</Borat>


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> <Borat> Looks like Studio 60 is cancelled <pause> NOT!</Borat>


Or <Borat> Studio 60 is *not* cancelled. </Borat>


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Great success! High Five!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wprager said:


> No, but perhaps its _cancellaiton is, though._


_I doubt they'd cancel the program immediately after greenlighting it for the rest of the season._


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

bicker said:


> I doubt they'd cancel the program immediately after greenlighting it for the rest of the season.


I believe you failed to catch the joke. (Note the emphasis on the misspelling.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Ah. Got it now.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

bicker said:


> Ah. Got it now.


Besides, this is an old thread from when FOX News erroneously announced that it would be canceled. There are (multiple) other newer threads announcing the renewal. Not sure why this thread got bumped.


----------

