# Studio 60 ... S01E04 "The West Coast Delay" OAD: 10-9-2006 *spoilers*



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Wow, lots of work to try to get a joke properly attributed.

I enjoyed the show though, and was still wanting more when it ended.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Man, who'd think that a show about a sketch comedy show would keep me on the edge of my seat, and laughing, at the same time? That was AWESOME. Rather unrealistic, probably, but still hilarious!

I guess I question the need to go live, rather than a press release the next morning. Plus, in the "real world," they'd find a sketch in the library of the same (or close to the same) length to queue up if they did need to drop a sketch.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> I guess I question the need to go live, rather than a press release the next morning.


My guess is that for the initial broadcast, they have the faintest glimmer of a defense, but since they knew about the plagiarism before the West Coast broadcast, that would be indisputably a deliberate act. So they HAD to remove the skit, and thus they had to replace it with something.


----------



## zync (Feb 22, 2003)

Its pretty neat to see Sorkin back at work. You can tell its from the same guy who did West Wing


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I liked the show, but as Loadstar says it was way unrealistic. They use stolen material, which then itself turns out to be stolen... from a guy who wrote it during the one season he just happened to be working at S60? Riiiiiiight.

Stupid, too, because they could have just had the original writer who suggested it be the one it was stolen from in the first place... they would have had to have that guy be somehow unavailable to confirm/deny this after the show but I would have much more easily bought that than the insane coincidence they actually used.

Still, I liked the ep a lot ("tell Jordan I'm not 15..." along with the obvious and completely predictable, but still funny, "Matt on the other hand...")


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

Another great episode.

I question if a reporter would/should be influencing her subject by pointing out the video of the other comedian doing the bit, but it's a minor nit pick.


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

I swear we had to pause the Tivo about 10 times or more tonight, just so we could get our laughing out of our system before we moved on in the show, we didn't want to miss a thing!!

That neck snap Matt did was replayed a couple of times, too funny!! This one is a keeper, I love this show, it's a great Monday show too!! Great way to end a Monday, laughing!!


----------



## rawbi01 (Oct 13, 2005)

I watched the show today wondering if I was going to keep the SP. The answer is yes. I thought it was very good. I liked the comment to the reporter " by the way, nice rack"


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I thought Nate Corddry did an excellent job this episode. Finally we got to see what he could do when they actually gave him some material to work with.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

I thought this was the best episode of Studio 60 so far, and love the idea that Christine Lahti will be a frequent guest star. I also liked that there were no Jack sightings and only one Jack shout-out. 

Someone needs to explain the 7-second discussion Danny had with the director. They needed to replace 90 seconds with new material, but the said they needed to subtract 7 seconds. Why? The new live portion would have been right out of a commercial break, and should have run 90 seconds, but instead they were only running 83 seconds? I am baffled by this ...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

modnar said:


> Another great episode.
> 
> I question if a reporter would/should be influencing her subject by pointing out the video of the other comedian doing the bit, but it's a minor nit pick.


Well, I don't see any reason for her NOT to point out the video. It really doesn't affect the bias of the article... and in fact, it gives her more material to write about.

Probably the most distracting part about the episode - the entire B-plot, but particularly the part with Matt going to the Roxy. First off, obviously they were trying to portray a "Pussycat Dolls" type group... but couldn't they come up with a better name than "Bombshell Babies"?!? Seriously corny as heck.

Second, the whole bit just didn't flow at all... I mean, none of the reactions were what I'd expect, the whole scene just kind of landed like a ton of bricks. None of the interaction between Matt and this chick worked... it never sold the fact that they (apparently) dated, and for her to hand over her boot with a personalized inscription without so much as a blink of an eye? What the heck?

But past that, the whole bat bit also just never rang true. "I thought it was his uniform number"? Um, you'd have to be more blonde than Jessica Simpson (no offense to any blondes reading this, of course) to mistake a 7 digit number for a uniform number. It wasn't believable at all.


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

drew2k said:


> I thought this was the best episode of Studio 60 so far, and love the idea that Christine Lahti will be a frequent guest star. I also liked that there were no Jack sightings and only one Jack shout-out.
> 
> Someone needs to explain the 7-second discussion Danny had with the director. They needed to replace 90 seconds with new material, but the said they needed to subtract 7 seconds. Why? The new live portion would have been right out of a commercial break, and should have run 90 seconds, but instead they were only running 83 seconds? I am baffled by this ...


I was baffled too, I'm trying not to think about it, that whole conversation during the show confused me..... lol


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

drew2k said:


> Someone needs to explain the 7-second discussion Danny had with the director. They needed to replace 90 seconds with new material, but the said they needed to subtract 7 seconds. Why? The new live portion would have been right out of a commercial break, and should have run 90 seconds, but instead they were only running 83 seconds? I am baffled by this ...


It was a mostly meaningless argument. What they were arguing about was trying to match up timing so that the live bits actually match up correctly with the feed being sent from the broadcast center. If they didn't match it up correctly, they could come in early or late, and it would look really, really ugly to the viewers.

It wasn't the length of the re-written segment they were arguing about... it was just regarding when precisely they needed to start sending the feed.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Under normal circumstances they would be broadcasting a videotaped show with no delay. Now, they are jumping into the middle of the taped broadcast with a live segment. The live segment has a 7-second delay but the tape replay doesn't, so they actually have to start broadcasting the live portion 7 seconds _earlier_ than when they want it to be broadcast in order for their segment to sync up with the portion of the taped broadcast that they want to replace.

If they didn't subtract seven seconds from their timing, they would end up broadcasting seven more seconds of the tape than they would have wanted to.

edit: must... type... faster....


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

What they were arguing about was trying to remember if they have to go seven seconds early or seven seconds late.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Of course, the issue with the timing is precisely why, in the real world, I'd imagine they'd just do a quick search through the tape library for an old show segment of a similar length, send it on over to the broadcast center, and have it subbed in. If it's not precisely the same length, they'd add a title graphic and music to vamp it out to the right length.

Then, all they'd need to do is just issue an apology the next morning. No fuss, no muss.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> It wasn't the length of the re-written segment they were arguing about... it was just regarding when precisely they needed to start sending the feed.


That makes sense ... thanks.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

I had a hard time with the guys protecting the writer who plagarized. The network may have owned the skit, so they couldn't get sued, but the writer was still trying to pass it off as his own. They are all going to trust him to not try it again? They really must be smoking stuff.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Ok, the more I think about this episode, the less and less logic there was to it. The latest thing that's bugged me... 

They're supposedly "on the Sunset Strip" in Hollywood, right? And it's a Friday night? The only group of people they could find in HOLLYWOOD are a bunch of homeless people? Granted, it's after midnight, but they couldn't have found some nearby club and emptied it out, paid the entire place to see a special performance of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip?"


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

Does Sorkin have a thing for cricket games in India or what?

As soon as they asked for a game score, my thoughts went to that Sports Night ep.

Anyone remember it?

My other first thought was that the writer that gave the idea had given it to Lenny Gold as well.

Load, I think think she was putting him on about the phone number being his uniform #.

Didn't love this ep except as a former TV guy seeing how the characters act. There are many people I "recognize" here. Especially Tim Busfield's director.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Then, all they'd need to do is just issue an apology the next morning. No fuss, no muss.


I could see however not wanting to wait until the morning to acknowledge the issue. They'd want to get in front of it as soon as they could. If they waited until morning and in the interim the story of the plagirism broke in the mainstream media, then they would look worse, like they were apologizing only because they got caught.

Being proactive instead of reactive was absolutely the right call.


----------



## adunnigan (Jun 13, 2003)

I loved the "Toonces the Cat" reference--now THAT was comedy


----------



## sonnik (Jul 7, 2000)

Most people don't know this, but a similar incident occurred on SNL.

Jay Mohr actually confesses to this in his book _Gasping for Airtime_ about his life when he was a writer/featured player on the show.

In Jay's portrayal of events, he too was feeling pressure about getting a segment on the show (of course, he has _other_ issues going on) in the book. Of course, this pressure may have been pretty common for featured players at the time. He had seen a standup, and he based a sketch on it.

A few weeks later he was called into Lorne's office (lawyers present). Lorne asked him point blank if he plagiarized the material. Jay confesses to lying to Lorne (saying the material was his own work), while looking him [Lorne] in the eye. He adds that while he feels that Lorne knew he was lying, Lorne just looked at him and said (paraphrasing) "okay - that's all I need." Jay never heard of the issue again. (Who knows, maybe Lorne had NBC settle the issue in court quietly).


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

I just realized one more reason I really liked this episode better than the previous one: not one mention of Christians, crazy or otherwise.


----------



## danieljanderson (Nov 19, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Of course, the issue with the timing is precisely why, in the real world, I'd imagine they'd just do a quick search through the tape library for an old show segment of a similar length, send it on over to the broadcast center, and have it subbed in. If it's not precisely the same length, they'd add a title graphic and music to vamp it out to the right length.
> 
> Then, all they'd need to do is just issue an apology the next morning. No fuss, no muss.


I think the "live" aspect makes for more and better press.


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

Great episode. I really thought Danny and Matt would use this to fire the writing staff. But a very nicely done episode and very hilarious. Mathrew Perry is great in this role. Really perfect for his type of humor.



Spoiler



And the whole will Matt and Herritt get together next week? It's Sorkin! He'll drag this out for at least 4 seasons.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

In reality, if they had discovered a plagiarized 90 second bit between the live showing and the west coast feed, they would have filled it with commercials or a "technical difficulties" card or anything without live actors..


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

Not True at all... West Coast feeds of news shows are updated all the time, there's no reason why a west coast feed of a live comedy show could not be. There is no way they'd leave a "Please Stand By" image up for 90 seconds by choice. The foible I found interesting was loading the audience in just seconds before Air. Audience Loads are done much earlier, usually 30 minutes, which includes time to "warm up" the audience. In this case, it would have been done at least 15 minutes before air.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

madscientist said:


> I liked the show, but as Loadstar says it was way unrealistic. They use stolen material, which then itself turns out to be stolen... from a guy who wrote it during the one season he just happened to be working at S60? Riiiiiiight.


Didn't they say that he had been working on S60 back in '91?

Certainly more than a few years ago. But the food dropping jokes didn't become prevalent until 2002 when the US started dropping those yellow food packages into Afghanistan as part of the invasion. So the timeline seems off.



drew2k said:


> I just realized one more reason I really liked this episode better than the previous one: not one mention of Christians, crazy or otherwise.


Well no mention if you discount the crack about Matt's ex believing that the world was created in 6 days.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Good episode. Entertaining, funny, interesting. But, I am already sick of the love story. This isn't a low budget sitcom, so why do we have a low budget sitcom rehashed from every other sitcom love story like this? I wish they'd just kill it...


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I liked when they were looking out of Matt's office and DL poked his hand through the blinds, noticing that there was no glass there


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

MScottC said:


> Not True at all... West Coast feeds of news shows are updated all the time, there's no reason why a west coast feed of a live comedy show could not be. There is no way they'd leave a "Please Stand By" image up for 90 seconds by choice. The foible I found interesting was loading the audience in just seconds before Air. Audience Loads are done much earlier, usually 30 minutes, which includes time to "warm up" the audience. In this case, it would have been done at least 15 minutes before air.


I was wondering why you couldn't round up any backstage folks that might not be needed for that segment (props, etc.) and use them as the Audience. But the overtime would be a killer. 

+1 on liking the scene where Simon (DL's character) is peeking through the blinds and seeing the glass is missing.

Jan


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> They're supposedly "on the Sunset Strip" in Hollywood, right? And it's a Friday night? The only group of people they could find in HOLLYWOOD are a bunch of homeless people? Granted, it's after midnight, but they couldn't have found some nearby club and emptied it out, paid the entire place to see a special performance of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip?"


Based on the street sign in the first episode, the studio isn't literally located on the "Sunset Strip" portion of Sunset Boulevard -- so, trust me, the audience they got was reasonably realistic.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

trainman said:


> Based on the street sign in the first episode, the studio isn't literally located on the "Sunset Strip" portion of Sunset Boulevard -- so, trust me, the audience they got was reasonably realistic.


... and who in a hip, trendy hollywood bar would be pulled from their $400-minimum-to-get table for $20?

Once you get into those places, you don't leave. Certainly not for something as touristy as a live studio audience.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

trainman said:


> Based on the street sign in the first episode, the studio isn't literally located on the "Sunset Strip" portion of Sunset Boulevard -- so, trust me, the audience they got was reasonably realistic.


Ah, what do you know, Valley Boy?


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

DancnDude said:


> I liked when they were looking out of Matt's office and DL poked his hand through the blinds, noticing that there was no glass there


That was classic. I loved the look on his face as he realized there wasn't any glass.  :up:


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

vman41 said:


> I had a hard time with the guys protecting the writer who plagarized. The network may have owned the skit, so they couldn't get sued, but the writer was still trying to pass it off as his own. They are all going to trust him to not try it again? They really must be smoking stuff.


I agree with you 100%. I can't imagine the Matthew Perry guy would let it go when the other writers said "we'll offer to resign to protect him." And why in the world would they protect a plagiarizer and hurt their own careers for him? So what if he hasn't had much stuff on the air - that guy should have been fired on the spot, and I can't imagine why he wouldn't.

Also, the plagarized material wasn't funny (I know, I know, we've had this argument before...)

Still, the show was enjoyable, with several laugh-out-loud moments (anything involving the glass window was excellent).


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> madscientist said:
> 
> 
> > I liked the show, but as Loadstar says it was way unrealistic. They use stolen material, which then itself turns out to be stolen... from a guy who wrote it during the one season he just happened to be working at S60? Riiiiiiight.
> ...


Sorry, I'm not sure how this relates to my comment?



Jonathan_S said:


> But the food dropping jokes didn't become prevalent until 2002 when the US started dropping those yellow food packages into Afghanistan as part of the invasion. So the timeline seems off.


The original joke could have been about some other food drop mission (we seem to do this fairly often) and updated for the times?



Jonathan_S said:


> Well no mention if you discount the crack about Matt's ex believing that the world was created in 6 days.


See, to me that's just completely in-character for Matt. I guess some people like to interpret every bit of dialogue as the personal views and vendettas of the producer and/or director, but personally I just think they're writing the character as he (or she) is. Should we never have someone depicted on TV that doesn't believe in Creationism (or Christianity, or whatever) just to avoid having to give them lines that might offend someone?  (note, this is not directed at your post Jonathan--just a general comment)


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

Wasn't it actually more than 90 seconds they had to fill? I know the actual joke was only 90 seconds, but I thought they were actually going to do the entire news segment again, because they mentioned that they wouldn't be able to splice in the 90 second part and not make it look like they had spliced it in. And I assumed they were getting the audience not so they would have an audience to show on camera, but so that they would have people there laughing at the jokes, rather than insert a laugh track or have the writers load up the seats and "fake laugh" at the jokes that they already knew.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

FourFourSeven said:


> I agree with you 100%. I can't imagine the Matthew Perry guy would let it go when the other writers said "we'll offer to resign to protect him." And why in the world would they protect a plagiarizer and hurt their own careers for him? So what if he hasn't had much stuff on the air - that guy should have been fired on the spot, and I can't imagine why he wouldn't.


Because, as mentioned in the last episode, it was Ricky and Ron's REFUSAL to stand up for Matt when he was forced to leave the show the first time that made him hate them so much. For Matt, the big issue with Ricky and Ron was their lack of loyalty. They can't be complete hacks - they've held onto their jobs for a long time. If they've got some talent, they can be worked with to get their writing back up to par. But the one thing that Matt hated about them was that they hung him out to dry when he needed support. He respected that they stood up for a fellow writer this time - now he can work with them to improve their writing product.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jking said:


> Wasn't it actually more than 90 seconds they had to fill? I know the actual joke was only 90 seconds, but I thought they were actually going to do the entire news segment again, because they mentioned that they wouldn't be able to splice in the 90 second part and not make it look like they had spliced it in. And I assumed they were getting the audience not so they would have an audience to show on camera, but so that they would have people there laughing at the jokes, rather than insert a laugh track or have the writers load up the seats and "fake laugh" at the jokes that they already knew.


Yeah, the 90 seconds was the material they would have to re-write... but they re-did the entire News 60 segment. That would be the third time they did that sketch that night. (once at dress, once at live, and once at West Coast).

It's a good thing that they are on the west coast... if they would be like SNL, they'd be up at like 3 in the morning trying to catch the west feed.

Overall, despite the qualms I had about how realistic the A-plot was, it was still entertaining as heck. It was clearly a classical farce, and it worked as that. The B-plot, however, really REALLY didn't work for me. They needed to re-work that whole segment - or just have the whole episode dedicated to the A-plot.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> Because, as mentioned in the last episode, it was Ricky and Ron's REFUSAL to stand up for Matt when he was forced to leave the show the first time that made him hate them so much. For Matt, the big issue with Ricky and Ron was their lack of loyalty. They can't be complete hacks - they've held onto their jobs for a long time. If they've got some talent, they can be worked with to get their writing back up to par. But the one thing that Matt hated about them was that they hung him out to dry when he needed support. He respected that they stood up for a fellow writer this time - now he can work with them to improve their writing product.


True enough, unfortunately this only demonstrates RickyRon's loyalty to their people... not any sort of loyalty to the show or to Matt and Danny. The only upside is that it demonstrated they had loyalty to SOMEONE or SOMETHING, at least.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I was a little worried about this show with it getting beat by the Bachelor last week but it looks like it's ratings are coming back. It was #8 in total viewers and #6 in the 18-49 age range it was second to CSI Miami and beat the return of What About Brian. Things are looking up.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

FourFourSeven said:


> I agree with you 100%. I can't imagine the Matthew Perry guy would let it go when the other writers said "we'll offer to resign to protect him."


Didn't Matt and Danny want to fire them anyway? They should have jumped on the offer...


----------



## MrGreg (May 2, 2003)

Why didn't they re-record the news segment and splice it in to the west coast feed? What do they gain by actually doing that live? Seems like an unnecessary risk.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Didn't Matt and Danny want to fire them anyway? They should have jumped on the offer...


I think they were ordered to keep them...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Yes, because they had a contract. But if they quit, so much for the contract.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> First off, obviously they were trying to portray a "Pussycat Dolls" type group... but couldn't they come up with a better name than "Bombshell Babies"?!? Seriously corny as heck.


It looked like (at least in one scene) Matthew Perry was saying something else other than "Bombshell Babies"- perhaps a name that didn't clear?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Vito the TiVo said:


> It looked like (at least in one scene) Matthew Perry was saying something else other than "Bombshell Babies"- perhaps a name that didn't clear?


Well, I was sort of wondering if they had actually planned to have the _real_ Pussycat Dolls as a brief cameo appearance, and that fell through. I didn't pick up on the change in the ADR though.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> They're supposedly "on the Sunset Strip" in Hollywood, right? And it's a Friday night? The only group of people they could find in HOLLYWOOD are a bunch of homeless people?


Dude, have you been to Hollywood? It's a really scuzzy place once you're 1/2 block away from Hollywood Blvd, and the Blvd itself gets scuzzier the farther east you go. Sunset Blvd, 2 blocks south is only slightly better. Los Angeles is trying hard at the moment to do a urban renewal project for the area, but it's going to take time.

Drug dealers, homeless types, hookers and lost tourists are exactly what you'd find if you drive around at 11pm on a Friday night.

--Carlos V.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I like this show and I will keep watching it, but I have to say I don't think it's as good as either West Wing or Sports Night. There are just some things that are not working for me. Like the whole unrequited/forbidden love/showgirl subplot -- just not doing anything for me at all. I just have not known these characters long enough to care whether they date or not, and I just thought the showgirl-boot thing was dumb.

Also I didn't buy the "we own the joke" ending. It was cute, but just didn't make that much sense. The original guy wrote the joke *for* Studio 60 -- that's why they had a copy in the archives. So why didn't it sound familiar to anybody on the show or the writing staff? We've been led to believe that some of these writers have been with the show for decades. The internet pundits figured it out right away, but nobody on the show thought that monologue sounded familiar when it actually was on the show before? Even if it didn't air, it must have gotten pretty far into the process for them to have written it out and have a file on it. And if it didn't air, then where did the stand up comic get it if was written for the show? Or are we supposed to believe that the plagarizer knew it was S60 material when he stole it (maybe that's where he got it?) But if that's true, wouldn't he say something to the head writers before the show went live and admitted to plagarizing the joke? He would have known he was busted and might get fired, so why let the show go hang itself? There were just too many holes in the story.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Oh come on, people. They were doing an homage to just this kind of webpage. Where people watch TV then go talk about it on the internet. It is amazing how quickly some internet junkies can spot something or find something. Heck, the guy's girlfriend maybe saw the show and posted the video. Does EVERYTHING have to be explained?

Other points:

1. Reporter pointing it out? Well, that is what a reporter does. It is not influencing your story. You get an angle or dirt or information and you brnig it to the subject's attention and ask them for a statement, etc. Her statement was watching what they did.

2. The Bombshell Babes is a corny name? Riiiight. Like Pussycat Dolls is so classy or unique.

3. It was a fun episode with people in near panic, so we are going to analyze their every reaction? It was PEOPLE motivated. They could have taken the morning after route but they left it up to the writer on how he wanted to approach the issue since he would be the guy who would be on the line. HE wanted to fix it right away and be upfront about it.

4. Not so amazing that they owned the joke. The guy in the "room" may have gone thru old stuff himself and found an obscure routine that may or may not have ever aired and "sold" it. And, gee, it was 15 years old. If it never aired, the original submitter may have thought that was why it was good to submit. No one would remember it. (And who says he didn't fess up to R and R and that is why they found it.)

5. Ricky and Ron earned respect because they were perceived as only being about themselves by our heroes. They now saw them in a different light. It is a good solution. And I could see R and R taking that road. They are not supposed to be bad guys. Just guys who aren't as talented and/or have grown stale. Not every show is about heroes and villans. Nice to see something that just takes a range of people like this. (Heck, even Jack isn't a bad guy even though he gets nasty at times...it is his job.)

Good show. When a show goes quickly, you know it is good.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

I really like this show, but the "will they get back together" angle is already way overplayed. I don't know why Sorkin is going down this road -- just seems so cliched to me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Marco said:


> I really like this show, but the "will they get back together" angle is already way overplayed. I don't know why Sorkin is going down this road -- just seems so cliched to me.


Agreed on that one. wonder if the networks make them put those stories in to keep it "interesting?"


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Agreed on that one. wonder if the networks make them put those stories in to keep it "interesting?"


Or maybe sorkin thinks that because it might have been interesting on sports night, it still must be interesting now, many years later.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

madscientist said:


> Sorry, I'm not sure how this relates to my comment?


It only relates in my mind. 
Specifically, your comment about the joke reminded me about my thought from last night that the timing seemed odd.


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> 5. Ricky and Ron earned respect because they were perceived as only being about themselves by our heroes. They now saw them in a different light. It is a good solution. And I could see R and R taking that road. They are not supposed to be bad guys. Just guys who aren't as talented and/or have grown stale. Not every show is about heroes and villans. Nice to see something that just takes a range of people like this. (Heck, even Jack isn't a bad guy even though he gets nasty at times...it is his job.)


I couldn't disagree with you more. First, let me note that I don't think of Ricky and Ron as "bad guys" nor do I Jack, and I don't think the show is about, or should be about, "heroes and villains." (Sorkin shows are more nuanced than that - part of the reason I enjoy them.) That's not the issue.

The issue is this - a writer, whose sole job is to write comedy material for the show, plagarized. That is quite possibly the worst thing a writer can do. And nobody will tell the boss who did it? And the boss is okay with that? And this shows "loyalty" and is a "good thing?" Absolutely not.

It just seemed completely unbelievable that the entire senior team of Studio 60 works like hell to fix the problem, but don't seem all that interested in finding out who did it and ensuring it doesn't happen again.

(I agree with your other points, by the way)


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

> The issue is this - a writer, whose sole job is to write comedy material for the show, plagarized. That is quite possibly the worst thing a writer can do. And nobody will tell the boss who did it? And the boss is okay with that? And this shows "loyalty" and is a "good thing?" Absolutely not.
> 
> It just seemed completely unbelievable that the entire senior team of Studio 60 works like hell to fix the problem, but don't seem all that interested in finding out who did it and ensuring it doesn't happen again.
> 
> (I agree with your other points, by the way)


I disagree. Ron and the other guy are in charge of the room. It was their call to present it. To "pass the buck" is a cowardly thing to do and shuffles off personal responsibility. I've been in this situation in a different context. If they told me who it was I would fire that person and the two people reporting to me for not taking personal responsibility in their jobs.

On your second point they only had a limited amount of time to fix the problem. Their definition of a fix was interrupting the west coast feed which could only be done under a certain amount of time. There is plenty of time to play the blame game later. Fix first, blame later.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

Marco said:


> I really like this show, but the "will they get back together" angle is already way overplayed. I don't know why Sorkin is going down this road -- just seems so cliched to me.


As quickly as it's losing viewers, I wouldn't worry about it getting too overplayed. Then again, with so many failing shows on NBC they're going to have to keep something around unless they have another L&O ready to go.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

vman41 said:


> I had a hard time with the guys protecting the writer who plagarized. The network may have owned the skit, so they couldn't get sued, but the writer was still trying to pass it off as his own. They are all going to trust him to not try it again? They really must be smoking stuff.





TonyD79 said:


> 4. Not so amazing that they owned the joke. The guy in the "room" may have gone thru old stuff himself and found an obscure routine that may or may not have ever aired and "sold" it. And, gee, it was 15 years old. If it never aired, the original submitter may have thought that was why it was good to submit. No one would remember it. (And who says he didn't fess up to R and R and that is why they found it.)


I think Tony has your answer. If you watch the initial writer's roundtable scene, the guy is clearly flipping through his laptop and says he "has something". Not that he's "written something". The laptop is passed around. It's intentionally misleading to us, the audience (and possibly intentionally misleading to R&R in an attempt to get recognized), but with hindsight knowledge that guy could have been flipping through Studio 60's unused script libraries and found the original '91 sketch. R&R didn't know it was written in '91, because of the way they defended themselves and the room, but the scene does make sense if it's a "lie of omission" rather than out and out plagarism.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Andrew_S said:


> As quickly as it's losing viewers, I wouldn't worry about it getting too overplayed. Then again, with so many failing shows on NBC they're going to have to keep something around unless they have another L&O ready to go.


Thank you for that wonderful threadcrap.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

MScottC said:


> Not True at all... West Coast feeds of news shows are updated all the time, there's no reason why a west coast feed of a live comedy show could not be. There is no way they'd leave a "Please Stand By" image up for 90 seconds by choice.


SNL did once. When Sam Kinison made a stand-up appearance (1985, I think; it was about a year before he hosted), his segment of the live broadcast ended with some sort of plea for the legalization of marijuana. On the west coast feed, there was a "title card" (well, a picture of the cast with the words "Saturday Night Live" and the NBC logo) for about a minute in its place, without audio. In repeats, the scene is simply cut (you can see the edit just before he thanks the audience).

-- Don


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Since Matt wrote "Crazy Christians" years ago and Studio 60 was going to air it in the pilot, doesn't that make this the second time - in three episodes - that they were going to plagiarize a former writer?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

MacThor said:


> Since Matt wrote "Crazy Christians" years ago and Studio 60 was going to air it in the pilot, doesn't that make this the second time - in three episodes - that they were going to plagiarize a former writer?


Interesting question, but is it really plagiarizing if the work was for the show to begin with?

In the end this week taught everyone that the bit wasn't realy plagiarized, it was owned by S60 all along. That would seem to be the same for the _Crazy Christians_ sketch.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

MacThor said:


> Since Matt wrote "Crazy Christians" years ago and Studio 60 was going to air it in the pilot, doesn't that make this the second time - in three episodes - that they were going to plagiarize a former writer?


It's not plagarism if the show owns the material. Even if the writer leaves the show, the copyright is owned by the show, because it's written for and paid for by the show.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

I never even gave it a thought until this show. You poor west coasters getting nothing live. Do the west and central zones record the east coast feed and then just cue up tape or is there actually a separate beam 'live' at those appropriate times?

i caught up on 3 weeks of this recently and thank goodness it got interesting.


----------



## mask2343 (Jan 6, 2003)

The only thing that bothers me about the show is that the "cast" isnt' funny off stage or on? They speak funny lines, but don't strike me as the goofy personalities it takes to make a show like this. Like a Will Ferrel or Mike Meyers. They are all SO serious.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

newsposter said:


> I never even gave it a thought until this show. You poor west coasters getting nothing live. Do the west and central zones record the east coast feed and then just cue up tape or is there actually a separate beam 'live' at those appropriate times?
> 
> i caught up on 3 weeks of this recently and thank goodness it got interesting.


{ thread hi-jack mode on }

I seem to recall e.r. doing a few live episodes (at least one) where they did the episode live for both East/Central and then later again for West Coast.

The local NBC affiliate had some behind the scenes stuff that caught the actors between the two live performances for the same episode and was asking them what it was like, etc.

For the most part though I think you have the process correct -- live is only 'live' in the east coast, and is 'filmed live' or whatever the correct term is for the west coast.

Of course the west coast has the benefit of getting their sports scores much earlier in the day, so they get a decent trade off  :up:

{ thread hi-jack mode off }


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

mask2343 said:


> The only thing that bothers me about the show is that the "cast" isnt' funny off stage or on? They speak funny lines, but don't strike me as the goofy personalities it takes to make a show like this. Like a Will Ferrel or Mike Meyers. They are all SO serious.


Actually the way S60 does things seems more right to me in this area. While you might expect to see cutting up and such behind the scenes, but when the job is being a funny person, and your job depends on you being funny in front of the camera or audience, then you'd probably be more serious when you aren't doing the job.

It's not like the guys that line up an play football are always growling and wearing their game face, no? They walk around subdued, and normally are completely different than the personna we see on the field. I think the same is probably true for many comedians and people that work in that field.

They are funny when they have to be, but don't walk around always being goofy. If they did, when would anyone ever take them seriously?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I love this show, but I hate the unnatural way Sorkin writes and Schlamme directs.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Sadara said:


> I swear we had to pause the Tivo about 10 times or more tonight, just so we could get our laughing out of our system before we moved on in the show, we didn't want to miss a thing!!
> 
> That neck snap Matt did was replayed a couple of times, too funny!! This one is a keeper, I love this show, it's a great Monday show too!! Great way to end a Monday, laughing!!


Did we watch the same show?? I didn't find a single laugh during the whole show (yes I've watch all of them so far and haven't laughed at one yet).

For the most part a complete yawner I thought, HOWEVER they salvaged things a bit when the whole plagorism storyline kicked into gear....it didn't completely save the show, but perked me up a bit from a certain nap had it continued down the path the first half or so was taking.

I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10.


----------



## richNYC (Feb 27, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I love this show, but I hate the unnatural way Sorkin writes and Schlamme directs.


I think Timothy Busfield directed this episode (in the Schlamme style).


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

I think the reason they didnt want to put in old tape or just 90 seconds of dead air is Matt wanted to do an apology and give credit as soon as possible. That was the reason for the crickett score. He wanted to show that they knew they did something wrong and were trying to make it right immediately rather than the press getting it and then having to apologize after the fact.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

richNYC said:


> I think Timothy Busfield directed this episode (in the Schlamme style).


True. But Schlamme (along with Sorkin) definitely set the tone for the series.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

busyba said:


> Under normal circumstances they would be broadcasting a videotaped show with no delay. Now, they are jumping into the middle of the taped broadcast with a live segment. The live segment has a 7-second delay but the tape replay doesn't, so they actually have to start broadcasting the live portion 7 seconds _earlier_ than when they want it to be broadcast in order for their segment to sync up with the portion of the taped broadcast that they want to replace.
> 
> If they didn't subtract seven seconds from their timing, they would end up broadcasting seven more seconds of the tape than they would have wanted to.
> 
> edit: must... type... faster....


Thank you!

But I spent more time wondering why it would be so hard to find an audience at 12:30am in LA. They were making it sound like it was 4:30am!

I had to remind myself this was NOT SNL and they're on the West Coast broadcasting a live show TO the West Coast.

Seems to me they could have found SOME 'regular' people at that hour.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

mrpantstm said:


> Great episode. I really thought Danny and Matt would use this to fire the writing staff.


Me too.

I actually thought that Matt knew and gave them permission to air it just so they could hurt themselves.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

I'm torn on this show. I am confused at some of you saying how hard you laughed. Really? I'm watching it and liking it but - like Indy - I feel the characters aren't written 'real'. I don't see real people saying half these things.

And I certainly don't find it hilarious.

More like a very serious documentary about the goings-on behind the scenes of TV. And I like that stuff so I'll watch. But funny? Nah.

(Matt breaking the glass did get a laugh from me, though)


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I love this show, but I hate the unnatural way Sorkin writes and Schlamme directs.


Can you be more 'pecific?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Marco said:


> Can you be more 'pecific?


Everyone speaks in a rapid fire manner and with 100% certainty. It's like everyone already knows what is about to be said and has their answers lined up. Very unnatural. Smith did the same thing in Clerks. The walking conversation between Matt and Tom is a case in point.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

bdowell said:


> Of course the west coast has the benefit of getting their sports scores much earlier in the day, so they get a decent trade off  :up:
> 
> { thread hi-jack mode off }


does that mean you win more money on betting because you know the score earlier?



Alfer2003 said:


> Did we watch the same show?? I didn't find a single laugh during the whole show


in wyoming the house passed a bill giving hunters the right to have silencers on their rifles....when asked for a comment, the bear replied : grrrowwwl

c'mon that was so funny i played it back 3x!


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I love this show, but I hate the unnatural way Sorkin writes and Schlamme directs.


You mean that people don't have 2 minute conversations while walking across an entire TV set in real life?!? 

I have to agree that the show has a gloss to it that distracts me in a negative way. I get the feeling from the presentation that some of the real people involved in this show, plus many of the characters, think that they're working on _Citizen Kane_ and it just strikes me a bit wrong... The show is generally amusing to me so far (besides the 'love' story angle(s) that others have complained about) but it does lose points for the weird unnatural stiff feeling that it has.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

mask2343 said:


> The only thing that bothers me about the show is that the "cast" isnt' funny off stage or on? They speak funny lines, but don't strike me as the goofy personalities it takes to make a show like this. Like a Will Ferrel or Mike Meyers. They are all SO serious.


The "love interest" girl has a lot of comedic attempts when not taping. The whole holly hunter thing, for example.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

> in wyoming the house passed a bill giving hunters the right to have silencers on their rifles....when asked for a comment, the bear replied : grrrowwwl
> 
> c'mon that was so funny i played it back 3x


Sorry...nope...not remotely funny to me...all I did was groan at how lame the line was.

Oh well....it takes all kinds to make the world go round. 

Glad you enjoy the show BTW..it needs all the fans it can get.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Alfer2003 said:


> Sorry...nope...not remotely funny to me...all I did was groan at how lame the line was.
> 
> Oh well....it takes all kinds to make the world go round.
> 
> Glad you enjoy the show BTW..it needs all the fans it can get.


Which illustrates an early debate in the first Studio 60 thread here: the skit show is not great. It's just a backdrop for a behind the scenes show.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Which illustrates an early debate in the first Studio 60 thread here: the skit show is not great. It's just a backdrop for a behind the scenes show.


True but sadly without it, the show would indeed die since it's an integral part of the show....


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Alfer2003 said:


> True but sadly without it, the show would indeed die since it's an integral part of the show....


If the show were about stock traders would you demand market accuracy?


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> If the show were about stock traders would you demand market accuracy?


YES DAMMIT!!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

newsposter said:


> I never even gave it a thought until this show. You poor west coasters getting nothing live. Do the west and central zones record the east coast feed and then just cue up tape or is there actually a separate beam 'live' at those appropriate times?
> 
> i caught up on 3 weeks of this recently and thank goodness it got interesting.


About the only thing west coast (i.e. Pacific time zone people) see *live* are sports and the Academy Awards. (yes, there are occasional exceptions like the e.r. example mentioned above)

People in the central time zone see things at the exact same time as people in eatern time zone see them. (except their clocks read an hour earlier [yes, I know there are exceptions in certain areas during DST])


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

This was my favorite episode of the show so far. The show actually made me laugh pretty good a few times for the first time. This is why I give shows atleast a half season before giving up because in general shows get better with time.


----------



## mask2343 (Jan 6, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> The "love interest" girl has a lot of comedic attempts when not taping. The whole holly hunter thing, for example.


I don't find her character funny at all. She's always so serious.

Doesn't anyone have FUN doing this show?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

mask2343 said:


> I don't find her character funny at all. She's always so serious.
> 
> Doesn't anyone have FUN doing this show?


Comedy is serious business. I'll bet behind the scenes at SNL is no laugh riot. This is probably a fairly accurate representation.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> About the only thing west coast (i.e. Pacific time zone people) see *live* are sports and the Academy Awards. (yes, there are occasional exceptions like the e.r. example mentioned above)
> 
> People in the central time zone see things at the exact same time as people in eatern time zone see them. (except their clocks read an hour earlier [yes, I know there are exceptions in certain areas during DST])


And the Mountain Time Zone is always completely forgotten in these discussions.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

ElJay said:


> IndyJones1023 said:
> 
> 
> > I love this show, but I hate the unnatural way Sorkin writes and Schlamme directs.You mean that people don't have 2 minute conversations while walking across an entire TV set in real life?!?
> ...


Warning, another partial thread hi-jack coming...

{ start partial thread hi-jack }

I think I understand what both of you are talking about, and perhaps what you are discussing is what makes _Curb Your Enthusiasm_ work so well (most of the time) for me.

Larry David (and his compatriots in the show) come up with an outline but don't actually work with a traditional script. They use the outline, but then ad-lib their way from point A to point B. In doing that they get a much more natural flow and reaction.

I'm sure they have to re-do some scenes, and perhaps go through a few takes to get some stuff right (along with editing out some things that just didn't work, or are too raunchy for the show, etc.), but normally they seem to have gone with whatever they came up with to begin with.

I think S60 (and Sorkin's works in general, along with many others) could benefit from some of that approach, but then again the stars we see on the tube (or the big screen) in most cases are not used to working that way. They're used to having dialogue all laid out for them, and are used to following the script.

The conversations on S60 seem unnatural and rehearsed because they are. Like most TV shows, the actors have been through the lines several times by the time they actually are filmed (or videotaped in front of the live audience, etc.). They've gone through the lines in the first read, the walk thru, the dress rehearsal, etc. So, by the time we see them, well, they seem to be speeding through them.

It doesn't bother me the way some folks have talked about here (like the quotes above), but I can easily see that it would be annoying for some people. And Sorkin definitely has the conversations coming so rapid fire that the problem would be magnified several times over if it was an annoyance.

{ end partial thread hi-jack }


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Oh, I know all that. But Sorkin seems to like the rapid fire approach and doesn't give his actors time to, well, _act_. Let them react to dialog and not just spout off a witty retort each and every time.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> And the Mountain Time Zone is always completely forgotten in these discussions.


hardly anyone lives there!!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> hardly anyone lives there!!


Nobody that matters, anyway!


----------



## mask2343 (Jan 6, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Comedy is serious business. I'll bet behind the scenes at SNL is no laugh riot. This is probably a fairly accurate representation.


I can't believe that Chris Farley, Mike Meyers, Dana Carvey, Will Ferrel, etc were worried about EVERY single thing like these guys. I have never seen any of the good comics act less than goofy in interviews and such.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

mask2343 said:


> I don't find her character funny at all. She's always so serious.
> 
> Doesn't anyone have FUN doing this show?


Did you read the entire sentence I wrote? Are you suggesting when she clowns around doing a holly hunter impression that she is not having fun? Just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean that they aren't TRYING to be funny. I don't know about you, but I find will farrell pretty unfunny even when he's trying to be funny most of the time. Same for mike myers, dana carvey, and chris kattan.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

mask2343 said:


> I can't believe that Chris Farley, Mike Meyers, Dana Carvey, Will Ferrel, etc were worried about EVERY single thing like these guys. I have never seen any of the good comics act less than goofy in interviews and such.


Interviews are quite a different setting than nailing down a comedy routine for a live show in front of millions of viewers.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

mask2343 said:


> I don't find her character funny at all. She's always so serious.
> 
> Doesn't anyone have FUN doing this show?


I don't know ... but Jordan seems to have a lot of fun, epsecially when she's beig sassy to Jack, Matt or Danny!


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

awww, i thought the blonde's action during the bear joke made it complete. Rewind and watch again  It was so silly as to be silly.



devdogaz said:


> And the Mountain Time Zone is always completely forgotten in these discussions.


um what is this MTZ you speak of? if it's 12 in NY, and 11 in IL and 9 in CA...oh yea, somewhere it has to be 10...ooops sorry about that. Why dont they announce on show overruns that 60 minutes will be joined in progress in the east and at it's regular time in the west...oh and mountain too!

---------------
oh and it is me or are they really overdoing the political crap on this show?


----------



## borther (Jan 22, 2004)

Sadara said:


> I swear we had to pause the Tivo about 10 times or more tonight, just so we could get our laughing out of our system before we moved on in the show, we didn't want to miss a thing!!
> 
> That neck snap Matt did was replayed a couple of times, too funny!! This one is a keeper, I love this show, it's a great Monday show too!! Great way to end a Monday, laughing!!


I want some of whatever you are smoking. I love the show, just don't laugh out loud that often.


----------



## WeBoat (Nov 6, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I love this show, but I hate the unnatural way Sorkin writes and Schlamme directs.


Didn't I see in the credits that this one was directed by Timothy Busfield? I'll recheck when I get home, but I remember making the comment that the director is on the show playing a director....


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

bdowell said:


> Warning, another partial thread hi-jack coming...
> 
> { start partial thread hi-jack }
> 
> ...


Like you, I understand what people are saying. However, I am not in the least bit annoyed by it. I guess I am just so used to Sorkin & Schlamme's style that it feels natural to me. I have watched every episode of their previous series' enough times that I am not put off by the rapid fire approach.

And whether or not every single joke is funny to every single viewer is irrelevant to me. As a whole, I find the show to be brilliant and better than almost everything else on TV. I am not saying that nothing else out there is good, but that this tops my season pass list.

For slapstick laugh-a-minute comedy, I watch "My Name Is Earl". For good political fun-poking with some interesting interviews thrown in, I watch "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report". When I want to be totally board and don't feel like laughing, I watch "SNL". And for total over-the-top fiction I watch Fox News!


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

WeBoat said:


> Didn't I see in the credits that this one was directed by Timothy Busfield? I'll recheck when I get home, but I remember making the comment that the director is on the show playing a director....


We addressed this a few posts up. You smeeked!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mask2343 said:


> The only thing that bothers me about the show is that the "cast" isnt' funny off stage or on? They speak funny lines, but don't strike me as the goofy personalities it takes to make a show like this. Like a Will Ferrel or Mike Meyers. They are all SO serious.


I forget who it was (an old time comic like Milton Berle or someone) who said that SNL wasn't funny because the Not Ready for Primetime Players NEVER cracked up or laughed during a skit.

I think they are pretty serious about their comedy. Comedy is hard work.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I forget who it was (an old time comic like Milton Berle or someone) who said that SNL wasn't funny because the Not Ready for Primetime Players NEVER cracked up or laughed during a skit.
> 
> I think they are pretty serious about their comedy. Comedy is hard work.


He never saw Horatio Sanz.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

PJO1966 said:


> He never saw Horatio Sanz.


I almost wrote that but then I realized few think Horatio is funny....


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I almost wrote that but then I realized few think Horatio is funny....


I don't think he's funny, but he does.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

markz said:


> Like you, I understand what people are saying. However, I am not in the least bit annoyed by it. I guess I am just so used to Sorkin & Schlamme's style that it feels natural to me. I have watched every episode of their previous series' enough times that I am not put off by the rapid fire approach.


+1, same-birthday-boy :up:
I'd just add that, like on The West Wing, these are some very smart people, who are very accustomed to thinking on their feet. The dialogue style rings true to me.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

PJO1966 said:


> I don't think he's funny, but he does.


I will miss the "Rick..Rick...Rick.." skits, but not because of Rick. Amy makes those skits funny to me. I crack up at work everytime someone calls my co-worker, Rick, by name.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Wait -- you mean there are people out there who don't find "I'm Carol!!" to be a total laugh riot?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Does something have to make you laugh out loud to be considered funny? I don't find myself holding my sides that much during S60, but I still think it's a funny show. Some of the time I do laugh; most of the time I'm just highly amused by the dialog. I think there are different kinds of funny, and I think S60, while not as good as its predecessors, is still pretty good at "smart humor" that might not make you bust a gut, but still leaves you smiling.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

We're a week off, but I personally found the bear/silencer joke to be a "joke grenade"; it took a minute after launching for me to get hit. For some reason, it was funnier the 3rd time than the 1st.

A friend of mine did point out that he felt it would be funnier if, because the piece was about silencers, it may have been funnier if, when asked to comment, the bear went "..."; she made the face and motions of the bear, but when opening her mouth, make no sound.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Ruth said:


> Also I didn't buy the "we own the joke" ending. It was cute, but just didn't make that much sense. The original guy wrote the joke *for* Studio 60 -- that's why they had a copy in the archives. So why didn't it sound familiar to anybody on the show or the writing staff?


How many jokes do they go through in a week? They did not say it aired on the show, so the chances of someone actually remembering it off the top of their head from many years ago is slim.

I did not have a problem with it at all. Plagirism in comedy is a pretty common occurence, add that into the fact that comedians and writers sell jokes, bits and acts to each other as well, and the whole story line is not nearly that far-fetched.



> We've been led to believe that some of these writers have been with the show for decades. The internet pundits figured it out right away, but nobody on the show thought that monologue sounded familiar when it actually was on the show before?


I don't recall them specifically saying it was on the show, just something that was written for the show.



> Even if it didn't air, it must have gotten pretty far into the process for them to have written it out and have a file on it. And if it didn't air, then where did the
> stand up comic get it if was written for the show?


The guy who wrote it gave it to him thinking nobody would know? Someone else who worked for SNL stole it and sold it to him or gave it to him. Plenty of plausible reasons. You are working way too hard to dislike this part of the story.



> Or are we supposed to believe that the plagarizer knew it was S60 material when he stole it (maybe that's where he got it?) But if that's true, wouldn't he say something to the head writers before the show went live and admitted to plagarizing the joke?


Huh? Again, you are working too hard to dislike this part of the show.

I thought the show was pretty good, probably the best fo the first three.

As for people having a problem with the love story, a love story was a central part of Sports Night its entire run. Actually multiple love story lines, so I don't have a particular problem with that.

I just think the writing is very good on the show so far, really been enjoyable.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Alfer2003 said:


> Did we watch the same show?? I didn't find a single laugh during the whole show (yes I've watch all of them so far and haven't laughed at one yet).


Interesting...

You did not laugh once the entire show?

Probably should stop watching it then.. if you could not find a single thing amusing about the entire show filled with things others found amusing, it is probably not a show for you.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

mask2343 said:


> I don't find her character funny at all. She's always so serious.
> 
> Doesn't anyone have FUN doing this show?


I think that is kind of the point. Working for a creating a weekly live comedy late night show is an amazingly stressful and competitive environment. There is ton of real-world supporting evidence for that coming from the goings on at SNL.

I am curious as to why people think everyone sits around casually backstage at a show like this just having fun. It is clearly an intensive environment with a lot of pressure related to it, to both perform and be funny. That is not neccesarily conducive to backstage knee-slapping. I think this is a central premise of the show.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

marksman said:


> Interesting...
> 
> You did not laugh once the entire show?
> 
> Probably should stop watching it then.. if you could not find a single thing amusing about the entire show filled with things others found amusing, it is probably not a show for you.


i agree, if you look back at ep 1 thread, i hated the show and was gonna toss in the towel...however it got better to me...if it didnt get better for you..dont waste your time


----------



## RayChuang88 (Sep 5, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> About the only thing west coast (i.e. Pacific time zone people) see *live* are sports and the Academy Awards. (yes, there are occasional exceptions like the e.r. example mentioned above)


Actually, there is some talk of showing the Emmys live on the US West Coast at 1700 hours Pacific within the next few years, especially now that the Primetime Emmys are shown in late August instead of middle September as in the past. If that happens expect the Grammys and other awards to go this route shortly afterward.


----------



## DMHinCO (Dec 14, 2000)

marksman said:


> A love story was a central part of Sports Night its entire run.


Mmmmmm. Natalie. How did Jeremy ever capture that one?

Someone on this board said the West Wing dialogue doesn't always make sense or serve a specific plot purpose. But the rapid pace and witty comebacks and deadpan delivery remind us that these are really smart, quick-thinking, very knowledgeable, informed people. Personally, I thought uber-smart worked better on WW than here. I think the comedy world has more Norm MacDonalds and John Candys than George Stephanopolouses and Karl Roves.

As for the writers having fun versus stressing all the time, I wouldn't know what SNL is really like. But The Daily Show has a whiff of folks having fun. Whiff of something else, too. Maybe Toonces is on TDSwJS next week.

Enjoying this show. Nate Corddry and the Bombshell babes didn't pull me in, but the sudden plagiarism panic did.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DMHinCO said:


> Mmmmmm. Natalie. How did Jeremy ever capture that one?
> 
> Someone on this board said the West Wing dialogue doesn't always make sense or serve a specific plot purpose. But the rapid pace and witty comebacks and deadpan delivery remind us that these are really smart, quick-thinking, very knowledgeable, informed people. Personally, I thought uber-smart worked better on WW than here.


I don't know... I would expect to find wittier and funnier people on a comedy show than in the White House. Nothing about politics screams out "witty and funny people" to me.

The reality is that is how Sorkin populates his shows... same was on Sports Night. Not necessary that a 2nd tier Cable Sports News Show would be full of such people either, but it was in that case.


----------



## DMHinCO (Dec 14, 2000)

Sorkin has his style as distinctly as Stephen King has his. Sorkin's first opus was excellent (Sports Night). His second was really good (West Wing). This one is good.

Just how good was Sports Night? While looking for Sabrina Lloyd and Kayla Blake, I stumbled on this Sports Night quotes page. I forgot how unbelievably fantastic that show was.

Matt's bat going through the window and Danny's response was really funny. :up:


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

newsposter said:


> I never even gave it a thought until this show. You poor west coasters getting nothing live. Do the west and central zones record the east coast feed and then just cue up tape or is there actually a separate beam 'live' at those appropriate times?


Since I don't think anybody directly answered this: yes, the networks send out a separate satellite feed for the Pacific time zone, which is _usually_ exactly the same as the feed three hours earlier for the Eastern and Central time zones. Occasionally it'll be different -- they'll put in a Best Foods mayonnaise ad instead of a Hellmann's mayonnaise ad, for example. Or they'll add a graphic that says "Recorded from an earlier live broadcast" during the "SNL" opening titles.

Some shows get more than two feeds, such as the "Today" show -- that has a separate feed for every time zone (it starts at 7:00 A.M. everywhere), unless there's huge breaking news.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

trainman said:


> Since I don't think anybody directly answered this: yes, the networks send out a separate satellite feed for the Pacific time zone, which is _usually_ exactly the same as the feed three hours earlier for the Eastern and Central time zones.


interesting...a previous poster said the Mountain zone is always left out of these discussions and apparently they were right


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

newsposter said:


> interesting...a previous poster said the Mountain zone is always left out of these discussions and apparently they were right


Well, the intention is to simply not give the Mountain Zone any television.

But they just steal the satellite feed for the Pacific Zone, and the networks don't care enough about Mountain to do anything about it.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

markz said:


> Like you, I understand what people are saying. However, I am not in the least bit annoyed by it. I guess I am just so used to Sorkin & Schlamme's style that it feels natural to me. I have watched every episode of their previous series' enough times that I am not put off by the rapid fire approach.


Sorkin was a stage actor and playwright before he did movies and TV. I do not expect him to be writing 'natural' dialogue as a novelist might.

Whether you want to call it 'mannered' or describe it some other way, he's definitely got his own style, where the overall shape and flow of the dialogue matters tremendously to him.

The Sorkin-music is an acquired taste -- but I have acquired it. 

For me, it is not profitable to say that Studio 60 is better or worse than Sports Night or The West Wing (or the movie _The American President_) or whatever. The Sorkin-music is back. That's the important thing.

I am content to sit back, let the actors get warmed up and settle into the show, and enjoy the music while it lasts.

Jan


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, the intention is to simply not give the Mountain Zone any television.
> 
> But they just steal the satellite feed for the Pacific Zone, and the networks don't care enough about Mountain to do anything about it.




In all seriousness, since the Mountain time zone airs the primetime material one hour after the ET/CT feed and two hours prior to the Pacific feed, is there actually a third feed done specifically for MT or do the networks there simply record the ET feed and play it back an hour later?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Those of you who are nitpicking about how the characters are too serious and not having fun backstage/between shows/during the week really need to take a look at 2 books: Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live and Gasping for Airtime: Two Years in the Trenches at Saturday Night Live. You'll quickly see that all was not fun and games off screen. Very illuminating reads.


----------



## EchoBravo (Apr 20, 2002)

Here's another "me too" in regards to the love story BS. I love the show, but I couldn't possibly care less about the love story / sexual tension stuff. Leave that to shows my mom watches, thank you.



Alfer2003 said:


> Glad you enjoy the show BTW..it needs all the fans it can get.


I thought for a little bit (then talked myself out of it) that they were indirectly addressing their own early ratings woes. When Jordan was talking about psychographics and saying that only one alpha viewer could make up for the loss of up to five regular viewers, it seemed to ring a little real-life to me. Anyone else think that, even for a minute? I could see how five people who like smart writing and "get it" could be more valuable than your average state fair-goin', stretch pants-wearin', fanny pack-sportin' Celebrity Duets watcher.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

EchoBravo said:


> ...I could see how five people who like smart writing and "get it" could be more valuable than your average state fair-goin', stretch pants-wearin', fanny pack-sportin' Celebrity Duets watcher.


Hey now! I liked Celebrity Duets and LOVE Studio 60! It IS possible to have a diverse taste in TV shows!


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

EchoBravo said:


> When Jordan was talking about psychographics and saying that only one alpha viewer could make up for the loss of up to five regular viewers, it seemed to ring a little real-life to me. Anyone else think that, even for a minute? I could see how five people who like smart writing and "get it" could be more valuable than your average state fair-goin', stretch pants-wearin', fanny pack-sportin' Celebrity Duets watcher.


The Alpha Consumer is a very real concept in advertising and marketing circles.

It's not necessarily people who like "smart writing" but in general, it refers to the trendsetters, the people who know what's "cool" before others catch on. The young educated hipsters who read _Vanity Fair_ and have money to spend.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> The Alpha Consumer is a very real concept in advertising and marketing circles.
> 
> It's not necessarily people who like "smart writing" but in general, it refers to the trendsetters, the people who know what's "cool" before others catch on.


Yeah, it doesn't matter whether they "like smart writing." What matters is whether they buy all kinds of stuff they see advertised in commercials.

I don't think this episode could have been shot after the Pilot aired (could it?). I think that was probably more a reference to Sorkin's other shows than to this one.

While we're talking about great material Sorkin has written, we shouldn't forget about:


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

aindik said:


> While we're talking about great material Sorkin has written, we shouldn't forget about:


A Few Good Men has always been a favorite movie of mine ever since I first saw it. I have a handful of movies in that category. The funny thing is I did not even know Sorkin wrote it until very recently, unless I knew before and just forgot about it.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> In all seriousness, since the Mountain time zone airs the primetime material one hour after the ET/CT feed and two hours prior to the Pacific feed, is there actually a third feed done specifically for MT or do the networks there simply record the ET feed and play it back an hour later?


As I recall from back when I dealt with this kind of thing as a closed-captioner, there's definitely a separate Mountain feed for the network morning shows (as described above) and "Good Morning America"; NBC had one for their late-night lineup, as did ABC (which consisted solely of "Nightline" way back when). I have no idea about prime-time feeds, but I figure as long as they're going to do it for late-night programming, they might as well do it for prime time -- less of a chance that someone at the affiliate in Albuquerque is going to accidentally erase the tape or something. 

Now, Arizona is an interesting situation -- since I never encountered a special "Mountain Standard Time" feed for the winter months, I presume that the Phoenix and Tucson affiliates do their own tape-delay when they need to. (I think Indiana affiliates were doing this as well, although that's a thing of the past now that Indiana is observing DST.)


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

markz said:


> Hey now! I liked Celebrity Duets and LOVE Studio 60! It IS possible to have a diverse taste in TV shows!


+1

Jan


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

trainman said:


> Now, Arizona is an interesting situation -- since I never encountered a special "Mountain Standard Time" feed for the winter months, I presume that the Phoenix and Tucson affiliates do their own tape-delay when they need to. (I think Indiana affiliates were doing this as well, although that's a thing of the past now that Indiana is observing DST.)


Thanks for answering my question. And just an FYI, the special feed would be MST for the summer months, when the rest of the Mountain time zone is on MDT. In the winter we're all on MST.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

EchoBravo said:


> I thought for a little bit (then talked myself out of it) that they were indirectly addressing their own early ratings woes. When Jordan was talking about psychographics and saying that only one alpha viewer could make up for the loss of up to five regular viewers, it seemed to ring a little real-life to me. Anyone else think that, even for a minute? I could see how five people who like smart writing and "get it" could be more valuable than your average state fair-goin', stretch pants-wearin', fanny pack-sportin' Celebrity Duets watcher.


Back in the height of West Wing's popularity, they were always talking about how the show didn't necessarily draw that most viewers of all shows, but that it had the most affluent viewers of any show on TV. NBC was very proud of this and I'm fairly certain they were able to use this to their advantage in setting ad rates.

So Sorkin is definitely writing about something he knows in this case.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

EchoBravo said:


> I thought for a little bit (then talked myself out of it) that they were indirectly addressing their own early ratings woes.


It's ironic for sure, but not self-referential. Sorkin wrote the first several episodes well in advance of the pilot to minimize the chance of production delays, which was one of the reasons NBC parted ways with him on the West Wing. Even had he not, this episode would have been in the can before the pilot even aired and any ratings results were known.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

devdogaz said:


> In all seriousness, since the Mountain time zone airs the primetime material one hour after the ET/CT feed and two hours prior to the Pacific feed, is there actually a third feed done specifically for MT or do the networks there simply record the ET feed and play it back an hour later?


Depends on the Network.

CBS doesn't have a Mountain feed at all, stations in the Mountain Time Zone are responsible for recording the New York feed and playing it back themselves an hour later.

NBC has a Mountain feed, but 99% of the time it is the New York feed recorded in New York and played back an hour later, just the network doing it instead of the stations.

News programs from NBC and CBS might be done live for the Mountain Time Zone depending on what is happening, and how timely and newsworthy it is. But 90% of the time it is the East Coast feed recorded by the Mountain stations and played back.

FOX and ABC I'm not sure of, since I've never worked for those networks.

phox


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> The Alpha Consumer is a very real concept in advertising and marketing circles.
> 
> It's not necessarily people who like "smart writing" but in general, it refers to the trendsetters, the people who know what's "cool" before others catch on. The young educated hipsters who read _Vanity Fair_ and have money to spend.


Wanting to advertise to a trendsetter because they get others to buy the product is subtly different than wanting to advertise to a group because they themselves consume at a higher rate.

I keep thinking of the scene in "This is Spinal Tap" where the manager is explaining why the group is playing smaller venues.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

phox_mulder said:


> FOX and ABC I'm not sure of, since I've never worked for those networks.


ABC, as of 2 years ago made the Mountain affiliates record the Central Feed and play it back. Our ABC affiliate didn't have an HD recorder, so we got to watch all of the HD stuff an hour early.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TheMerk said:


> ABC, as of 2 years ago made the Mountain affiliates record the Central Feed and play it back. Our ABC affiliate didn't have an HD recorder, so we got to watch all of the HD stuff an hour early.


So how did that work? Primetime would start at 6:00 pm on the HD channel and end at 9? What was shown on the HD feed between 9 pm and 10 pm before the news would start?


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

DMHinCO said:


> Mmmmmm. Natalie. How did Jeremy ever capture that one?
> 
> Someone on this board said the West Wing dialogue doesn't always make sense or serve a specific plot purpose. But the rapid pace and witty comebacks and deadpan delivery remind us that these are really smart, quick-thinking, very knowledgeable, informed people. Personally, I thought uber-smart worked better on WW than here. I think the comedy world has more Norm MacDonalds and John Candys than George Stephanopolouses and Karl Roves.
> 
> ...


Finally watched this last night. I read the thread this morning, and I find myself squarely in the boat that likes the show but finding myself annoyed at some of the dialogue. As pointed out in the quoted post, the dialogue proves the charachters are smart, quick-thinking, knowledgeable, informed people. Yes, possibly, but how it comes out is that everyone is EXACTLY the same character with a slightly different backstory. Every line out of Amanda Peet's mouth, I can imagine Matthew Perry saying. Every line out of D.L. Hughley's mouth, I can imagine Perry/Peet/Cordory saying. At this point, the dialogue makes them all the same person which is starting to grate on me.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

TheMerk said:


> ABC, as of 2 years ago made the Mountain affiliates record the Central Feed and play it back. Our ABC affiliate didn't have an HD recorder, so we got to watch all of the HD stuff an hour early.





devdogaz said:


> So how did that work? Primetime would start at 6:00 pm on the HD channel and end at 9? What was shown on the HD feed between 9 pm and 10 pm before the news would start?


I remember our ABC affiliate doing that a couple years ago, HD prime from 6-9, then they'd upconvert the last hour of prime before starting the news at 10.

Now they must either have an HD delay device, or a mountain feed,
as it's on the same time as SD prime, 7-10.

phox


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

trainman said:


> As I recall from back when I dealt with this kind of thing as a closed-captioner, there's definitely a separate Mountain feed for the network morning shows (as described above) and "Good Morning America"; NBC had one for their late-night lineup, as did ABC (which consisted solely of "Nightline" way back when). I have no idea about prime-time feeds, but I figure as long as they're going to do it for late-night programming, they might as well do it for prime time -- less of a chance that someone at the affiliate in Albuquerque is going to accidentally erase the tape or something.


Sorry for being late to the party. Hey, get it right - they usually forget to record it here, not erase it! 

I know they use some HD recorders here, but I have no ideas what actual feeds we get. But who cares, Mountain time is best!

Our shows are only 1 hour after Eastern time shows air;
Sports come on a decent hour and end at a decent hour;
No whiny crybaby stuff like "CBS ruined my Sunday primetime with runover";
News is at 10pm;
As noted, get the sports scores the next morning!

Unlike east coast people, we don't need our egos puffed by having our *time zone* mentioned every time a show is aired.  (Good thing, too.) We can figure out for ourselves when the shows come on. Well, we kinda HAVE to.

We like to fly under the radar. Too many Californians and Texans are moving here already, so we try to keep the cool time zone thing a secret.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Delta13 said:


> News is at 10pm;


so you dont have the typically 11pm news? What do they show then? And does your fox news start at 9? They would love that here. FIRST at 9, fox news, we dont make you stay up until 10 to get your news!

or is that mountain are all folks that need a lotta sleep so they show things earlier


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

newsposter said:


> so you dont have the typically 11pm news? What do they show then? And does your fox news start at 9? They would love that here. FIRST at 9, fox news, we dont make you stay up until 10 to get your news!


I know this from my TV Guide collection (and, actually, I have spent a bit of time watching TV in the Mountain time zone): since everything's an hour earlier, by the time you get to 11:00, you're in the middle of Jay Leno or David Letterman, or "Nightline" is just about over, since they all started at 10:35. And, yes, Fox affiliates have their local news at 9:00. (All of that works exactly the same in the Central time zone.)

Now, if you really want your mind blown, think about this: I once spent the night in a motel in Tucumcari, New Mexico. The motel got the local cable system's entire lineup, which included TV stations from both Albuquerque and from Amarillo, Texas. Tucumcari is on Mountain time and Amarillo is on Central time. Therefore, that night I watched David Letterman at _9:35_, on the Amarillo affiliate.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

newsposter said:


> so you dont have the typically 11pm news? What do they show then? And does your fox news start at 9? They would love that here. FIRST at 9, fox news, we dont make you stay up until 10 to get your news!


That's true for Central time as well.

Central primetime is from 7-10. It's the 10pm local news, not the 11pm news. I never understood the "film at 11" jokes as a kid, because the news came on at 10, not 11. Letterman and Leno are both half over by 11pm.

The central timezone doesn't have the weirdness of the mountain zone b/c the central zone watches the same shows/feed as the East Coast. Everything is just an hour earlier according to the clock.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

wow..non recording device users must really have problems watching shows in the middle zones. Especially if baseball practice etc is later.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

newsposter said:


> wow..non recording device users must really have problems watching shows in the middle zones. Especially if baseball practice etc is later.


It's not that bad. Basically everything is shifted. In general, people get home from work earlier, eat dinner earlier, and settle in for TV earlier. I've always looked at the TV time on the coasts and couldn't figure out how people could stand to have everything so late.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> It's not that bad. Basically everything is shifted. In general, people get home from work earlier, eat dinner earlier, and settle in for TV earlier. I've always looked at the TV time on the coasts and couldn't figure out how people could stand to have everything so late.


wow i'm really sheltered...so you dont have the typical 8ish to 5 ish workdays? I definitely am a fan of starting earlier and leaving earlier..maybe i'm in the wrong timezone

of course time is irrelevant with tivo


----------



## ced6 (Jul 30, 2003)

newsposter said:


> so you dont have the typical 8ish to 5 ish workdays?


That actually still exists??


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

ced6 said:


> That actually still exists??


ur in the wrong field


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

ced6 said:


> That actually still exists??


8:00 to 4:30 for me most days!


----------

