# Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip "Pilot" OAD: 9-18-2006 *spoilers*



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Finally, woot! we can really talk about this great show and not have to worry about spoilerizing everything (except any previews for future shows).

I loved the homage to Network at the beginning.

:up: to Amanda Peete's character.

I expected big things before the show aired, and before I had seen the preview disc from NBC/Netflix, and the show delivered.

It's my pick for best new show of the year and I'll stand by that pick throughout.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

What was with that freaking bug that was practically in the center of the screen? Man that was horrible.

Beyond that a good show. I'll probably be watching this one for a while. I loved Judd Hirsch's Howard Beale moment.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

ElJay said:


> What was with that freaking bug that was practically in the center of the screen? Man that was horrible.
> 
> Beyond that a good show. I'll probably be watching this one for a while. I loved Judd Hirsch's Howard Beale moment.


Must've been a local affiliate bug. On the national HD feed, the only thing unusual about the bug was that it was on the left lower corner rather than the traditional right lower corner. Other than that, it was a rather sedate translucent, uncolored peacock logo with ".com" after it in plain text. I'd be positively ecstatic if everyone had a bug that was like that.

Anyway, I hope that the series carried over some goodwill from "West Wing," because as it stands, the series was very exposition-heavy, and after the rather good start where Judd Hirsch's character came unhinged, the episode really didn't have much at all happen. Plus, for a show about two comedy show writers/producers, the characters really weren't all that funny.

That said, I am fairly interested to see what happens... it does look like it could have some good dramatic moments. I just hope that they lighten the series up a bit, both in terms of lighting (what was with the idea of setting the whole first episode after dark?) and in terms of writing. I'm not asking for a comedy, NBC has another sitcom about a sketch comedy show. I'm just something with a little more sparkle to the writing. Sorkin needs to go and talk to Joss Whedon, get some tips on how to add the funny without distracting from the pathos.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

ElJay said:


> What was with that freaking bug that was practically in the center of the screen? Man that was horrible.
> 
> Beyond that a good show. I'll probably be watching this one for a while. I loved Judd Hirsch's Howard Beale moment.


I like Hirsch a lot in the role here and really wish he'd have been a regular in that role. I know it wouldn't work with him obligated to Numb3rs, and he'd get fired for the rant, but the character was good regardless.

It was nice too that the shows within the show (the news reports and such) give you the confirmation that the whole thing was Network-esque. Again, part of a nice homage to the original. It shows respect for the original and at the same time gives Sorkin the opportunity to sort of thumb his nose at what TV in general has become.

The comments about the types of shows that get produced and aired now are dead on, and part of what was coming through in the discussion in another Studio 60 related thread that had appeared today.

Networks feed us crap because it's what we seemed to have responded to. That some within the business would be angry about it is understandable. Those that produce scripted shows have lost badly to reality crap and other generally lesser calibre programming. All part of why we get total crap rather than quality shows that should get better audiences but don't because people are too lazy to watch good quality stuff, too lazy to find it when it's on the tube, or just because the majority of the idiots in the TV audience really do want to watch crap like Celebrity Duets.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Good first episode.

I had the bug the same position as ElJay. (watched it on the regular SD NBC channel in Dallas). But it looked just like LoadStar described.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Good first episode.
> 
> I had the bug the same position as ElJay. (watched it on the regular SD NBC channel in Dallas). But it looked just like LoadStar described.


I see what you guys mean as I watch the HD feed of Leno. The bug is way, WAY further in towards the center of the screen.

On my 26" TV, during Studio 60, the edge of the peacock is 1 7/8" from the edge of the screen (good). During Leno, it's 4 1/8" from the edge of the screen (annoying as heck).

(Yes, I happen to have a ruler next to my TV, so it was easy for me to check.)


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I was sort of surprised that they not only managed to get a cameo by an actress from a competing network's hit television series, but also several mentions of the series were worked into the dialog. I guess this was Sorkin's way of saying NBS != NBC, but still, it was kind of surprising.

Then again, Sorkin and Felicity Huffman worked together at Sports Night, so it's not all that surprising as I think about it.


----------



## dwells (Nov 3, 2001)

My wife and I absolutely loved every minute of it- definitely lived up to the hype, no doubt about it- if anything it was even better than expected.

Easily one of the best first episodes of a series we've seen in quite awhile.......


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Loved it


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Ditto: my wife and I gave it a big :up: :up: :up:

I really don't agree with LoadStar about it being "exposition heavy" and "not all that funny"; I thought the exposition was great and most of the dialog was really funny: reminiscent of early West Wing (for obvious reasons) which I absolutely loved. I hope they *don't* mess it up like they did with WW. I think Whedon does great dialog as well but I don't want everything on TV to be Whedon.

I can only hope they manage to keep the dialog as good as it was here: it'll be hard to do IMO.

The season's off to a good start!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> I was sort of surprised that they not only managed to get a cameo by an actress from a competing network's hit television series, but also several mentions of the series were worked into the dialog. I guess this was Sorkin's way of saying NBS != NBC, but still, it was kind of surprising.
> 
> Then again, Sorkin and Felicity Huffman worked together at Sports Night, so it's not all that surprising as I think about it.


Not only that, but in Judd Hirsch's tirade, he ripped on "The Apprentice". Not directly by name, but you knew what he meant when he mentioned a show where people want to be Donald Trump.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Good show. Made us miss West Wing. 

I thought the humor was good. Typical Sorkin subtle humor.

tk


----------



## katbug (Oct 3, 2003)

Great show! I'm glad we tuned in for this one. I was a little worried that it would become too banter-heavy like Sports Night or West Wing even, but they seem to still have the great banter without stepping on each others' lines now. Much easier to follow, while still having to pay attention. 

The only problem I had with this show (and I'm sure will get easier as time progresses) is relating the actors to other roles they've played. Normally that isn't a problem for me, but having seen them play in shows together makes it a little more distracting than normal. 

I am really looking forward to more of this show!!! ;0)


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

Good pilot! Loved the homage to "Network" -- the tirade was even more true today then it was back in the 70's.

Strange bug -- the first 5-10 minutes had a large black border on all sides -- then it finally popped into full-screen 16X9 HD. Weird!


----------



## generalpatton71 (Oct 30, 2002)

I though the show was awesome!!! I just like Sorkin shows I guess. I'd say this becomes a big award winner, and I hope a ratings winner. It's got a tough time slop though with MNF and CSI Miami. I'm just glad I have a crap load of DVRs to record everything. However this earns my number 1 slot on my SP list for my main HDTV Tivo!


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Loved it!


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I watched it back when it was up on Bittorrent. And I watched it again tonight. It survived a multiple viewing quite well; a very good show. Now if only a real network would put someone like Jordan in charge...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

skanter said:


> Strange bug -- the first 5-10 minutes had a large black border on all sides -- then it finally popped into full-screen 16X9 HD. Weird!


Yeah, that happened here too. Annoying, but no big deal.


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

(Also annoyed that the bug was about 1/3rd from the left of the screen on the SD feed).

The show was great. I watched it from Netflix several weeks ago and watched a portion of it again last night. This is my favorite new show so far this season.

The fact that they opening credits used the same font as the West Wing credits made me happy, too.


----------



## generalpatton71 (Oct 30, 2002)

My central time zone affiliate didn't have any issues.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

skanter said:


> Strange bug -- the first 5-10 minutes had a large black border on all sides -- then it finally popped into full-screen 16X9 HD. Weird!


Actually, since this was the first show I HD-TiVod... I was a bit freaked when I saw it, given the only real complicated part of setting up the box is the Video Scaling stuff. Thought for a second I had bolloxed that part of the setup. Then I checked the other recording going on at the same time, CSI Miami, and that was fine. But till they flipped whatever switch they flipped, It had me wondering. Only real clue was that the network logo was overhanging edge of the picture.

As a technician for one of the networks, I can tell you that even for us, the whole HDTV thing is still something we are all getting used to. I imagine you'll see minor screwups like that on one channel or another for a few more years


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Amanda Peete is pregnant. wonder if they will write that in.


----------



## sschwart (Apr 4, 2001)

Pilots are never the strongest episode out there. There's a lot that has to be done to get everyone understanding what's happening. I think this was a great pilot. It had some very funny moments, a lot of exposition, a way of explaining what was going on without making it sound forced. 

And honestly, this episode was a lot better than most of the tripe out there.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

Sorry but I thought it was eh...Same old same old. Tell me who in this show makes you want to root for them? No one I saw so far. A bunch of pompous ego-maniacs.

And we are suppose to believe that Matthew Perry breaks up with his girlfriend because she makes a gospel album and goes on The 700 Club to hawk the album? He equates The 700 Club with a klan meeting?  

It's got potential but so far I see nothing "new" about these tired old story lines...


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

crazywater said:


> Sorry but I thought it was eh...Same old same old. Tell me who in this show makes you want to root for them? No one I saw so far. A bunch of pompous ego-maniacs.


Plenty of people. The couple (Matthew Perry & Sarah Paulson) who clearly still have a thing for each other. Bradley Whitford's character trying to kick a habit. Amanda Peet trying to rebuild a dying breed. The Horatio Sanz look-a-like to get fired. The idea of a show like SNL being relevant in today's day and age.



crazywater said:


> And we are suppose to believe that Matthew Perry breaks up with his girlfriend because she makes a gospel album and goes on The 700 Club to hawk the album? He equates The 700 Club with a klan meeting?


Not to get political, but considering the guy who hosts The 700 Club, I don't think that's all that far off. I felt it to be a completely reasonable excuse for breaking up with someone (although I'm guessing that's going to fluctuate depending on people's political/religious affiliation).

I haven't gotten a chance to watch last night's episode but I've seen the Netflix screener and thought it was the most brilliant pilot I'd ever seen. If it sticks to that standard or, heaven help us, gets better, it's gonna be a classic.


----------



## WeBoat (Nov 6, 2002)

Loved it. It's going to be the best show this fall.

We had the same SD issue here on NBC6 in Miami. Must have been a national feed problem.


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

Loved the Felicity Huffman cameo. I saw it a month or so ago and I agree definitly stood up to a second view.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

MScottC said:


> Actually, since this was the first show I HD-TiVod... I was a bit freaked when I saw it, given the only real complicated part of setting up the box is the Video Scaling stuff. Thought for a second I had bolloxed that part of the setup. Then I checked the other recording going on at the same time, CSI Miami, and that was fine. But till they flipped whatever switch they flipped, It had me wondering. Only real clue was that the network logo was overhanging edge of the picture.
> 
> As a technician for one of the networks, I can tell you that even for us, the whole HDTV thing is still something we are all getting used to. I imagine you'll see minor screwups like that on one channel or another for a few more years


It would be nice if they would just give up and send everything in 16:9 HD... and just upconvert and pillarbox all the "old" analog 4:3 content. That way, there's no "switch to flip" - just stick in whatever and the systems upconvert it and pillarbox it if necessary.

I know, wishful thinking. Oh, well.

And yes, the SD version being sent out on the HD feed was a national problem. We had the same thing here.


----------



## ireland967 (Feb 27, 2003)

Another who loved it here. Very character driven, and with such a killer cast I see this being a big winner in the new premieres this year.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

LoadStar said:


> Must've been a local affiliate bug. On the national HD feed, the only thing unusual about the bug was that it was on the left lower corner rather than the traditional right lower corner. Other than that, it was a rather sedate translucent, uncolored peacock logo with ".com" after it in plain text. I'd be positively ecstatic if everyone had a bug that was like that.


I watched it live in HD but recorded it in SD. The 'bug' was way too far in the middle of the screen in SD. I am getting too used to HD in that they don't clutter the screen with all their other-shows-promos in HD. I'm sure that'll change eventually 



skanter said:


> Strange bug -- the first 5-10 minutes had a large black border on all sides -- then it finally popped into full-screen 16X9 HD. Weird!


Probably means your local affiliate engineer forgot to flip the switch to HD after the SD broadcast of Deal or No Deal ended. Mine forgot too but remembered only after about a minute. I was ready to email them during the first commercial break if I had to


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

crazywater said:


> And we are suppose to believe that Matthew Perry breaks up with his girlfriend because she makes a gospel album and goes on The 700 Club to hawk the album?


I thought that *she* broke up with *him* because he wasn't supportive...


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

That's what I remember too. She dumped him because he didn't support her 700 Club appearance.

tk


----------



## RayChuang88 (Sep 5, 2002)

I enjoyed the show because Sorkin _perfectly_ captured the self-indulgent arrogance of many people in the entertainment industry. Sorkin must have read _Live From New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live, as Told By Its Stars, Writers and Guests_ by James A. Miller and Tom Shales, because what I read in that book got strongly reflected on this new series. :up:


----------



## sonnik (Jul 7, 2000)

RayChuang88 said:


> I enjoyed the show because Sorkin _perfectly_ captured the self-indulgent arrogance of many people in the entertainment industry. Sorkin must have read _Live From New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live, as Told By Its Stars, Writers and Guests_ by James A. Miller and Tom Shales, because what I read in that book got strongly reflected on this new series. :up:


Agree. To me, it seems like the Perry/Whitford characters seem similar to the Norm MacDonald/James Downey departure in the 90's. It could be akin to Franken/Davis not getting the show when Lorne Michaels left in 1980 (also Al Franken did some Weekend Update segments that irritated NBC management).

Though, there was an allusion to the Hirsch character not "going to bat" for Perry/Whitford when they were fired. The SNL Book referenced above made a slight reference to Lorne Michaels not really being in a position to fight for MacDonald/Downey - though Downey was hired back eventually (after Don Ohlmeyer left).

I wonder how the folks at SNL feel about a show like this hitting so close to home, especially in a year when SNL has had some budget restrictions implemented.

Cast:
- I think people will be impressed with how well Perry can do "Not Chandler" 
- Cool to see Nate Corddry (The Daily Show) land a gig like this. He didn't have a big part in the Pilot, interesting to see him in a dramatic role also.

I wonder if some people were expecting "more laughs" however. Not everyone who saw the ads/hype for this show were fully aware of Sorkin's work.


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

Did anyone else notice the Capital One/Enterprise Cars guy?


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

sonnik said:


> - Cool to see Nate Corddry (The Daily Show) land a gig like this. He didn't have a big part in the Pilot, interesting to see him in a dramatic role also.


Agree but he is one of the "big three" TV personalities on the show so he'll probably get some more air time in future episodes.


----------



## dtivouser (Feb 10, 2004)

I thought Amanda Peet's performance was the only weak spot in the show. It's a great character but I just don't think she was believable.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Watched it a month or so ago and again last night. Loved it both times, although I'm now ready to know what happens next.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

brott said:


> Did anyone else notice the Capital One/Enterprise Cars guy?


Yes. I think that's who the rest of the thread is referring to as the "Horatio Sanz" type guy. It took me a few minutes to remember which sets of commercials he was in, but I recognized the face.

I like Perry's "Not Chandler". He was the best performed character, in my opinion. I am hoping that when we get to the next week or two and the show goes back on the air, that both the dialogue and the visuals will lighten up a little (they made it SO dark and stuffy in the Studio).


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Really enjoyed it. Would be hard-pressed more to expect a better new show will show up in the coming days/weeks.

I did like the line about Vancouver being Boston, California too.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Did anyone else think that the theme music for the show-within-the-show sounded a lot like the Cosby Show theme?


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

dtivouser said:


> I thought Amanda Peet's performance was the only weak spot in the show. It's a great character but I just don't think she was believable.


Agreed. The Jordan character really suffers in comparison to Dana and CJ in particular. Amanda Peet is no Felicity Huffman or Allison Janney, but I thought the problem with the character went beyond her milquetoast performance.

I did not buy for one second that she was a network wunderkind of some sort. She was far too bland, and they need to do something to improve that character pretty quick if she is going to remain in a lead role.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

See, I didn't take her to be a wunderkind ... sure, she moved up, but if you listen to Ed Asner's list .. she didn't stay anywhere for very long. I bet we'll discover that she moved up every time just before she was going to be moved out anyway.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I think Peet's character might work. So far, she's just been standing back watching things (with a wicked little half-smile). It's when she has to step up and slug it out that we'll see that (or if) she has what it takes.

In other words, I'm not sure that the problems people are seeing with Peet stem from her acting or just what we've seen of the character so far.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

MitchO said:


> See, I didn't take her to be a wunderkind ... sure, she moved up, but if you listen to Ed Asner's list .. she didn't stay anywhere for very long.


But that's how it's done in TV. Few people stay anywhere very long. If you're a wunderkind, you move up fast and if not, you get moved out fast.

When we are introduced to the character, she is at a dinner party being given in her honor for being promoted to the President of the network (entertainment division, I'm guessing). She is a young woman who can't be more than 35 at the most (and given the comments about how every man at the network wants to bang her, she is probably supposed to be younger than 35).

That suggests that they are trying to pass the Jordan character off as a wunderkind, a la Jeff Zucker (who was named NBC Entertainment Pres at the age of 35). Or Jamie Tarses, who she was very obviously modeled after (and who also gets a "consultant" credit).

But I didn't find her believable at all, b/c those people aren't known for being bland or "nice." She just didn't radiate the uber-competence or drive that kind of character needs to have. But I hold out hope that she will improve and I'm still keeping this high on my SP list.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think Peet's character might work. So far, she's just been standing back watching things (with a wicked little half-smile). It's when she has to step up and slug it out that we'll see that (or if) she has what it takes.
> 
> In other words, I'm not sure that the problems people are seeing with Peet stem from her acting or just what we've seen of the character so far.


I agree completely. I took her role to be that of the "anti-network exec" - the one who is able to achieve what others couldn't - due in no small part to a modest, appeasing, conciliatory style. I'm sure they'll let her backbone show in future episodes if and when she needs to be tough, but for now I thought she was just fine.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Magnolia88 said:


> When we are introduced to the character [Jordan], she is at a dinner party being given in her honor for being promoted to the President of the network (entertainment division, I'm guessing).


I don't know the culture, but how realistic is it for network honchos to be having a "dinner" at 11:30 PM on a Friday night? Or maybe that's around the time the dinner was ending?


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

I thought the show was ok I guess I was expecting more humor. I really did not laugh very much. I don't like the amanda peet's character to nice and good to be believable for a network exec. I will give the show some more time to grow on me I am hoping they can mix in some humor. I guess I have been spoiled by the humor in the other dramas I watch like house and gilmoore girls.


I think it would be damn cool to get the entourage crew to do a cameo like vince chase hosting the show. I think that could be fun and lead to some good humor.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Amanda Peet is this show's version of President Bartlet -- the fantasy leader that Sorkin wishes was in charge. Smart, liberal, conciliatory for the most part but willing to take on the sacred cows when necessary.

The Star-Ledger critic described Studio 60 as Sorkin's "Mary Sue story for SNL." A "Mary Sue" apparently is fan fiction where the author inserts himself into a story and solves everybody's problems. For example, a Star Trek "Mary Sue" would end the Federation-Romulan War and then seduce Kirk or Spock. I think I see his point. Of course, he also said that Sorkin probably would write the best "Mary Sue" story ever.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

drew2k said:


> I don't know the culture, but how realistic is it for network honchos to be having a "dinner" at 11:30 PM on a Friday night? Or maybe that's around the time the dinner was ending?


I think that unlike SNL, Studio 60 (the NBS show, not the NBC show) is supposed to be a prime-time show, not a late-night show. They mentioned several times that it was the network's flagship, and I don't think a late-night show would be considered a flagship.


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

drew2k said:


> I don't know the culture, but how realistic is it for network honchos to be having a "dinner" at 11:30 PM on a Friday night? Or maybe that's around the time the dinner was ending?


11:30pm in NY is 8:30pm in LA. Dinnertime sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

devdogaz said:


> I think that unlike SNL, Studio 60 (the NBS show, not the NBC show) is supposed to be a prime-time show, not a late-night show. They mentioned several times that it was the network's flagship, and I don't think a late-night show would be considered a flagship.





brott said:


> 11:30pm in NY is 8:30pm in LA. Dinnertime sounds reasonable to me.


I guess they never actually announced what time the "live" program was going out, but I did read the Newsday review of Studio 60 which claims the show ends at 1 AM Pacific and that's what I was basing my question on. (I have no idea where I pulled "Friday" from.)

The Newsday info could of course be wrong, but now I wonder where the reviewer got that info from?

Here's the relevant quote:


Newsday said:


> Another not insignificant problem: With the exception of "Jimmy Kimmel Live" (broadcast live for a midnight airing in New York while tape-delayed in L.A.), late-night shows don't originate live from Los Angeles because they'd air in New York in the middle of the night. "Studio 60" wraps at 1 a.m. Pacific time, or 4 a.m. in New York. (In a word, huh?)


----------



## Mr2sday (Jul 8, 2005)

Was anyone else bothered by Matthew Perry's character having back surgery and needed drugs to keep him ok running up the stairs and running to yell and Amanda Peet?

I kept waiting for him to get up slow or hold his back or SOMETHING. "Oh, I just had back surgery. I'll be running the marathon next week." I'm thinking he didn't really have surgery and that's just his excuse for acting funny. 

Brad Whittford is still Josh. We had some time after Friends to have Chandler not be Chandler anymore. But West Wing just finished. Don't actors usually wait a year or two between lead roles like this on television? Not that he doesn't do the character well. I just need some time to separate him from Josh.

I enjoyed it otherwise. You know it was good when you think it's only 30 minutes in and then fade to black.


----------



## sonnik (Jul 7, 2000)

I just noticed that Mark McKinney (Kids in the Hall, Saturday Night Live - mid 90's) is credited as a story editor.

I just find that interesting as McKinney was on SNL during one of it's most troubled periods.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Mr2sday said:


> Was anyone else bothered by Matthew Perry's character having back surgery and needed drugs to keep him ok running up the stairs and running to yell and Amanda Peet?


It didn't bother me mostly because Matthew Perry's character CLAIMED to have had back surgery and needed drugs. I assumed it was a lie.


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

brott said:


> Did anyone else notice the Capital One/Enterprise Cars guy?


Don't know how much of a role he'll play, but if he gets any air time in the future, they gotta work in the line, "what's in your wallet?"


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Really liked it.

A few points. This was a pilot in all it's glory. The shows will take on a little different turn, which will be producing the Studio 60 show You barely got to see the show in the pilot.

Unlike a pilot like Standoff which will be pretty much the same as every episode.

As for nobody being likeable, or nobody to root for. These two things have nothing to do with whether a show is good or watchable. That's what people said about Arrested Development. None of the characters are nice or likeable, and I say Thank God.



Magnolia88 said:


> But I didn't find her believable at all, b/c those people aren't known for being bland or "nice." She just didn't radiate the uber-competence or drive
> that kind of character needs to have. But I hold out hope that she will improve and I'm still keeping this high on my SP list.


Well, she hasn't actually started yet  Her only act so far was to hire two guys who didn't want to take the job. To get them to take the job, she showed them she played hardball by knowing about the failed physical. That seems pretty driven and hard nosed to me!

-smak-


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Did anybody catch the production company credits? It was a shoe over the word "money".

"Shoe Money Tonight!"


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

I just couldn't get into it. Just got tired of all the yapping. Changed the channel after about 15 minutes (which, apparently, a lot of other people did according to the overnight numbers I read).

It seems to be okay when Sorkin does comedy yapping (Sports Night), but I just haven't gotten into his dramatic yapping (West Wing/Studio 60).

I DID like the Howard Beale bit in the beginning though. If Judd Hirsch was a regular, I could see myself tuning back in.

I MAY give the show another shot if they reair the premiere, but I think I need a different night mindset to get into the show. Mondays are for 24, Football, CSI:Miami, and Medium, IMHO.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

drew2k said:


> The Newsday info could of course be wrong, but now I wonder where the reviewer got that info from?


Out of their own brain, apparently. For one thing, "Jimmy Kimmel Live" hasn't been live for some time.

During the scene in which Steven Weber and Amanda Peet are talking with Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford in the "Studio 60" green room, there's a monitor in the background showing what looked very much like a local weather report, which I took to indicate that the action was taking place during the late local news in Los Angeles -- so my interpretation is that "Studio 60" is indeed being done live relatively early in the evening for the benefit of the East Coast. (However, there was no conversation about what they were going to do for the West Coast tape-delayed rerun -- or maybe we're imagining that the weaselly Standards and Practices guy made that decision off-screen.)

On another note, on the SD feed here in Los Angeles, there was no "(peacock).com" bug during the show. (There was no bug during "Late Night with Conan O'Brien," either, although it was there at least for the last minute of Jay Leno.)


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

trainman said:


> Out of their own brain, apparently. For one thing, "Jimmy Kimmel Live" hasn't been live for some time.


You got me (and Newsday apparently) on that one! I've never cared for Kimmel and his bits...


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

trainman said:


> However, there was no conversation about what they were going to do for the West Coast tape-delayed rerun -- or maybe we're imagining that the weaselly Standards and Practices guy made that decision off-screen.


There was no mention of the resolution, but a throwaway line of dialogue mentioned that they would need to do something for the West Coast feed.

As to airtime, there are three clocks in the control room:

8:30 10:30 11:30


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

crazywater said:


> And we are suppose to believe that Matthew Perry breaks up with his girlfriend because she makes a gospel album and goes on The 700 Club to hawk the album? He equates The 700 Club with a klan meeting?
> 
> It's got potential but so far I see nothing "new" about these tired old story lines...


The anti-Christian lines were predictable and tiresome. However, overall, this show had some of the best writing I've seen in a long time.


----------



## grant33 (Jun 11, 2003)

trainman said:


> However, there was no conversation about what they were going to do for the West Coast tape-delayed rerun


When Steven Weber's character is walking up the stairs to go in and fire Judd Hirsch's character he's saying something about changing the opening for the West Coast delay.


----------



## grant33 (Jun 11, 2003)

drew2k said:


> I have no idea where I pulled "Friday" from


When Matthew Perry and Sarah Paulson are arguing in the hallway near the end of the ep she asks him if there's any way to end the argument and says "No, but score for us on Friday nights and we won't have a problem. I'm looking forward to working with you.


----------



## tedder (Jan 9, 2002)

Can someone confirm that this was on the set of Sports Night? The exec hallway and the operators/producers room sure look like it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

tedder said:


> Can someone confirm that this was on the set of Sports Night? The exec hallway and the operators/producers room sure look like it.


Highly unlikely... particularly since Sports Night has been out of production for quite some time. The control room was nothing like that from Sports Night either.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Very good for a show premiere. I can feel the Sorkin/Schlamme chemistry working. Can't wait for it to ramp up and get comfortable with the characters. I see many emmys in this shows future... :up:


----------



## aforkosh (Apr 20, 2003)

Also, it's performed on the West Coast (check the show's title). To be live in the East, it is actually done 3 hours earlier in local time(sort of like the live comedy on HBO on Fridays--Bill Maher's show is actually performed at 8pm local time, not 11pm).


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

I totally dug this show. Very much had a Sports Night feel, which I still consider to be one of the best shows ever. It's kind of like Deadwood, in that it makes me work to really get into, but once I did, I was hooked. I laughed out loud at a couple of lines, and really like the chemistry between Perry and Whitford. Season Pass for as long as it's on.


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

Fantastic show. Its the best writing I've seen from anything in a long time. The dialog was crisp, fast paced, and witty when it needed to be.

In a future episode Jordan says something along the line of:


Spoiler



the people who watch television shows aren't dumber then the people who make television shows


Hits the nail right on the head


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

grant33 said:


> When Matthew Perry and Sarah Paulson are arguing in the hallway near the end of the ep she asks him if there's any way to end the argument and says "No, but score for us on Friday nights and we won't have a problem. I'm looking forward to working with you.


Well, that, and the name of the fictional show is "Friday Night in Hollywood"

--Carlos V.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

So, with all the talk of the oddly placed bug, did everyone notice that it was noticeably absent from the scene where Matthew Perry's character was complaining about the bug? Coincidence? I doubt it.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

I've rarely said this about any show but one more chance and it's gone. Just not my thing. It's like they put together every star that doesn't have a show now and are attempting to make a go of it. 'Trying too hard' is the only way I know to describe it. I'm definitely no tv insider so i sure as heck dont even know what half these positions are and it took me a minute to even figure out who was who's boss. the girl says she's the president but next moment she is taking orders from someone else? 

and in todays litigious society wouldn't josh have sued the pants off the network and her boyfriend and gotten even more money than he would earn for a movie?

a tv show about a tv show just is weird. I bet they dont even have to make up new sets, just use the real thing  - even cheaper than vancouver


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Highly unlikely... particularly since Sports Night has been out of production for quite some time. The control room was nothing like that from Sports Night either.


It still didn't keep me from looking for Natalie.


----------



## KRS (Jan 30, 2002)

I'm cautiously optimistic. Other than Hirsch's meltdown, the show did take awhile to draw you in. No sign of Matthew Perry until 20 minutes in - my wife asked me at about the 17 minute mark if he really was on the show. 

And Perry did a good job - I was a bit worried he would be reprising Chandler too much when he first appeared and fell off his chair, but he quickly made me forget about ten seasons of Friends - no small feat!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Unbeliever said:


> Well, that, and the name of the fictional show is "Friday Night in Hollywood"


Is it? I thought the show (-within-the-show) was also called _Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip_...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Is it? I thought the show (-within-the-show) was also called _Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip_...


Nope. You may have been fooled by the fact that the opening to the fictional show was followed by the titles for the real show...that threw me for a moment.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

I was also confused by the different corporate positions and had to have them explained to me in a review. That's not good.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

Love the show. I'm not sure why people are saying it dragged after the Network tirade. I thought it moved very quickly and was suprised how fast the hour went by. 

I am a bit confused about the network's heirarchy as well so if anyone would like to explain how the President can have a boss, I'm all ears. 

I'm already hooked into this show and can't wait for next week!


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Amanda Peet is the president of the network. Steven Webber is higher up in the chain in the company that owns said network. Similar to the president at NBC having to report to someone at GE.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

Gunnyman said:


> It still didn't keep me from looking for Natalie.


I think it would be fun to bring Sabrina Lloyd on the show as Natalie, just as a nice in joke.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Is it? I thought the show (-within-the-show) was also called _Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip_...


They say "Live from Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip...", much like other shows say things like "From Studio 8A in Rockerfeller Center..."


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I will give it another few weeks. I usually have a hard time watching TV shows about TV shows. Because you know that if the show was too realistic about how things went on behind the scenes, the networks wouldn't air it. In addition I walk away feeling cheap from just watching a bunch of celebrities self glorifying what they do, sort of the same feeling I get if I watch an awards show. I agree that the show is fast paced, each actor goes on these fast espresso induced diatribes about a subject so fast, it almost seems Shakespearian. But that is totally a la West Wing. I could see this show getting more interesting with character development.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> Amanda Peet is the president of the network. Steven Webber is higher up in the chain in the company that owns said network. Similar to the president at NBC having to report to someone at GE.


you should write for them. You made that point in 3 seconds. It took well into the show for me to understand that.

I almost thought at one time the woman was becoming boss on monday and going to kick that other boss guy out. Just too confusing.

It's definitely a show i can't surf the web while watching. Like west wing i guess. Only difference is i'm not sure I want to put down the laptop for this one 

Maybe i'd be happier if there were some unknowns. It just seems like an all star cast and you usually dont have that unless it's charity golf outing or benefit of some sort.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

newsposter said:


> I've rarely said this about any show but one more chance and it's gone. Just not my thing. It's like they put together every star that doesn't have a show now and are attempting to make a go of it. 'Trying too hard' is the only way I know to describe it. I'm definitely no tv insider so i sure as heck dont even know what half these positions are and it took me a minute to even figure out who was who's boss. the girl says she's the president but next moment she is taking orders from someone else?


Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and nobody will force you to like the show, but you sound more confused then anything.

President is not the be-all and end-all of any company in terms of who is in-charge. So the fact that she is taking orders even though she is the Network president is not suprising. Besides that the network is just one company of many companies owned by the Media group, which has people running it. She is a division President, and in their hierarchy there are at least levels of people above her in terms of power. Steven Weber is her boss, and Ed Asner is the be-all-and-end-all boss over Steven Weber.

As for the stars, I liked all the guest stars on the show. I think it helped to flesh it out. The interesting thing is a lot of the regular cast got very little screen time in the pilot which gives them a lot to go with down the road. I don't necessarily expect there to be 6 high-profile guest stars on every show.



> and in todays litigious society wouldn't josh have sued the pants off the network and her boyfriend and gotten even more money than he would earn for a movie?


Highly unlikely. First he would have to come out publically as a big drug addict. Second, he would have to actually able to prove something, third, his career in show business would be absolutely over, and fourth he would likely not get anywhere near the money he is going to get just to run the show. So suing would have been a bad move.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I liked the show a lot, but I like anything quirky, that's not your typical crime or law show, which pretty much have ALL become redundent. I loved Sports Night (but for some reason, never got into the West Wing, which always seemed to be on when there was something else I liked to watch) and this definitely had a LOT of the same feel as Sports Night but a BIT more serious...

On Amanda Peet's character, I get the feeling she's one of these rising star types who someone (Ed Asner's character) took the chance on in order to prevent her from leaving. But I think she's green around the gills in how to "play the game" with the corporate types. Her agent's remark about her faux pa, mentioning the caterer at the party, leads me to believe she's not used to being around those types and won't follow protocol.

I also got the feeling that Weber's character doesn't like her and was against her taking the job. I think he's trying to hang her out to dry by letting her rehire Perry and Whitord.

I think Sorkin needs to lay off repeating the same jokes over and over again, but I know that's his trademark, and he used it a lot on SN. I got tired of them mentioning that Perry's breakup with Paulson had NOTHING To do with the National Anthem and that he's on pain pills. We GOT it. Sometimes I think Sorkin just enjoys hearing his dialogue a lot more than it actually makes sense.

The show has a lot of potential, but I think it will be an aquired taste, like Arrested Development. I don't see it being a HUGE hit, but a cult thing with a steady audience of faithfuls. Will this be enough to keep it on the air for a long time? It kept AD on the air for much more than the ratings suggested it should, but couldn't really save Sports Night which got too short a run.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I guess for the 1st few episodes they could put little job descriptions on screen explaining who folks are. Or people could pay attention better I guess. Frankly I'm glad to see TV you have to pay attention to again.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Oh and "yeah" has made its appearance, just waiting for "thing" and we will be in full on Sorkin Mode.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

You can see some info on the jobs everyone holds and actor bios at NBC's web site:

http://www.nbc.com/Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip/bios/

Here are the power people:

*Wilson White* (Ed Asner) is someone higher-up in the food chain than Jack Rudolph 
*Jack Rudolph* (Stephen Weber) is *Chairman* of NBS, National Broadcast System 
*Jordan McDeere* (Amanda Peet) is NBS *Network President*
*Danny Tripp* (Bradley Whitford) is *Executive Producer* of Studio 60 
*Matt Albie* (Matthew Perry) is *Senior Writer* at Studio 60 
*Cal Shanley* (Timothy Busfield) is the *Director* of Studio 60

By the way, according to the NBC web site, the name of the show-within-the-show is "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", not "Friday Night in Hollywood".


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Amazing show. It had me hooked right off the bat. I've never seen Sports Night or West Wing. I guess I missed out.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Very, very good pilot episode. Typical Sorkin (well, from what I remember from Sports Night - I never got into West Wing, although the few eps that I saw were always well-written and acted). Definitely a keeper.

[rant]

Those of you who are complaining about having to "work too hard" and "having to pay attention" while watching and that the show is hard to watch "while surfing on your laptop" are part of the REASON why reality TV exists and why many good quality scripted shows get cancelled too early. Don't proclaim that you want smart TV and then refuse to engage in the effort to enjoy it once you get it.

[/rant]


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> I guess for the 1st few episodes they could put little job descriptions on screen explaining who folks are. Or people could pay attention better I guess. Frankly I'm glad to see TV you have to pay attention to again.


Or maybe they could introduce the characters a little better.

The Jack Rudolph character was the only one I was confused about. It wasn't obvious from the start that he was Jordan's boss but they established that pretty quickly. What I was confused about was that they never mentioned who he was or what his title was. And he was introduced immediately after Jordan was introduced as president. In my eyes, president = big boss. And here she is getting bossed around from the start by some guy they didn't bother to introduce. It could've been handled better, IMO.

Very minor complaint for a pilot. Other than that little nitpick, I thought it was great!


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

marksman said:


> Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and nobody will force you to like the show, but you sound more confused then anything.
> 
> .


probably...but even such mundane and canceled shows such as invasion, threshold, etc were easier to understand. Oh and I got west wing and I thought they had some pretty complicated stuff on there yet I understood it. I'm definitely at the 51+ percent mark as far as where I rank in national intelligence (at least that's what i think ) and if I had to work that hard to figure it out, there's at least a portion of the ratings people are likely in the same boat.

for those that are into it and understand it all...u indeed are probably in 7th heaven. I actually do hope i dont like it the 2nd week as with all these new SP, i dont have enough time for everything and have 750 gigs of bulging hard drives.

crim minds already got the axe before the season even started for me.


----------



## KRS (Jan 30, 2002)

If you need to be clean in order to get insurance that the movie will get finished or whatever, how do directors like Oliver Stone make movies? Do they all just have to use their own money, or was this only an issue in the show because the guy had a history of drug use (not that Oliver Stone doesn't)?


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Supfreak26 said:


> Or maybe they could introduce the characters a little better.
> 
> The Jack Rudolph character was the only one I was confused about. It wasn't obvious from the start that he was Jordan's boss but they established that pretty quickly. What I was confused about was that they never mentioned who he was or what his title was. And he was introduced immediately after Jordan was introduced as president. In my eyes, president = big boss. And here she is getting bossed around from the start by some guy they didn't bother to introduce. It could've been handled better, IMO.
> 
> Very minor complaint for a pilot. Other than that little nitpick, I thought it was great!


Yeah ok I agree here.
Perhaps Ed Asnser's character should have said something about having Rudolph there to "look over her shoulder" or something.
Could have definitely been handled better.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> [rant]
> 
> Those of you who are complaining about having to "work too hard" and "having to pay attention" while watching and that the show is hard to watch "while surfing on your laptop" are part of the REASON why reality TV exists and why many good quality scripted shows get cancelled too early. Don't proclaim that you want smart TV and then refuse to engage in the effort to enjoy it once you get it.
> 
> [/rant]


for the record i give premieres 100% attention...still didnt get it..and a decent amount of posts on here agree with me...could have been written better to figure out who the characters were. Maybe the writer was being intentionally ambigous..just not my thing. Plus i'm not a ratings family so it doesnt' matter what i think as far as cancelation. It's the 1000 families and the 'critics' that do/dont acclaim (which term i hate and want it banned from ever being used again.

as far as reality shows...you are joking...if you take your eyes off survivor you will miss the juicy part of the challenges and all the body language from the survivors as they stab people in the back. Same with big brother...gotta watch and listen to it all or you will miss the important plots. yes i'm serious.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

KRS said:


> If you need to be clean in order to get insurance that the movie will get finished or whatever, how do directors like Oliver Stone make movies? Do they all just have to use their own money, or was this only an issue in the show because the guy had a history of drug use (not that Oliver Stone doesn't)?


I think Oliver Stone only needs to be bonded if he's also the Exec Producer. Danny Albie (Bradley Widford) was the Exec Producer, so basicaly he was responsible for EVERYTHNG that happened with the move, and that's why he's the guy that needed to be bonded.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> [rant]
> 
> Those of you who are complaining about having to "work too hard" and "having to pay attention" while watching and that the show is hard to watch "while surfing on your laptop" are part of the REASON why reality TV exists and why many good quality scripted shows get cancelled too early. Don't proclaim that you want smart TV and then refuse to engage in the effort to enjoy it once you get it.
> 
> [/rant]


Gotta disagree. There haven't been a lot of scripted shows that I felt were so good that I was outraged they were cancelled. Second, I think reality tv exists because it is at least more interesting and less predictable than most of the drek networks put out. Without the insane amount of reality tv we've seen, I don't think shows like Lost or Veronica Mars would ever have been created.


----------



## grecorj (Feb 6, 2002)

Good show (saw via Netflix originally & again after 9/18 airing); I suspect it will have broad appeal to Sorkin fans, but I'm not sure how it will play beyond that audience.

The first half of the pilot really dragged. The whole Judd Hirsch speech didn't work for me -- Sorkin was going for something akin to the Rob Lowe scene in the WW pilot, but I think the moment fell flat here.

I will say the last half of the pilot is excellent. Matthew Perry suddenly wakes up and does a great job; the last 2 or 3 scenes earned the show a place on my To Do List.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

What is wrong with you people? Ed Asner told Stephen Webber how pleased he was with the hiring of Amanda Peet. Doesn't that show the heirarchy right there? Ed > Stephen > Amanda > Matthew and Bradley. I didn't see anything complicated about any of it. 

You have to pay attention to what is going on, but even if you missed that part, it was clear throughout the show that Webber was the man in charge (excluding the small cameo by Asner). His title isn't important in the grand scheme of things. They could all be janitors, and you'd still realize that Webber's character was the boss, and Peet was the new kid looking to take over.


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Nope. You may have been fooled by the fact that the opening to the fictional show was followed by the titles for the real show...


Their "Live From NY, it's Saturday Night" is the pseudo Don Pardo saying "Live from Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, it's Friday Night in Hollywood!"


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

grecorj said:


> Good show (saw via Netflix originally & again after 9/18 airing); I suspect it will have broad appeal to Sorkin fans, but I'm not sure how it will play beyond that audience.
> 
> The first half of the pilot really dragged. The whole Judd Hirsch speech didn't work for me -- Sorkin was going for something akin to the Rob Lowe scene in the WW pilot, but I think the moment fell flat here.
> 
> I will say the last half of the pilot is excellent. Matthew Perry suddenly wakes up and does a great job; the last 2 or 3 scenes earned the show a place on my To Do List.


I didn't care much for any scene with Judd Hirsch either, but then again I've never liked Judd Hirsch in anything.


----------



## grecorj (Feb 6, 2002)

The fake NBS website refers to the show as "Studio 60":

http://studio60theshow.com/


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

johnperkins21 said:


> What is wrong with you people? Ed Asner told Stephen Webber how pleased he was with the hiring of Amanda Peet. Doesn't that show the heirarchy right there? Ed > Stephen > Amanda > Matthew and Bradley. I didn't see anything complicated about any of it.
> 
> You have to pay attention to what is going on, but even if you missed that part, it was clear throughout the show that Webber was the man in charge (excluding the small cameo by Asner). His title isn't important in the grand scheme of things. They could all be janitors, and you'd still realize that Webber's character was the boss, and Peet was the new kid looking to take over.


Ditto.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

johnperkins21 said:


> What is wrong with you people? Ed Asner told Stephen Webber how pleased he was with the hiring of Amanda Peet. Doesn't that show the heirarchy right there? Ed > Stephen > Amanda > Matthew and Bradley. I didn't see anything complicated about any of it.
> 
> You have to pay attention to what is going on, but even if you missed that part, it was clear throughout the show that Webber was the man in charge (excluding the small cameo by Asner). His title isn't important in the grand scheme of things. They could all be janitors, and you'd still realize that Webber's character was the boss, and Peet was the new kid looking to take over.


Well said. I didn't think it was all that complicated either, but apparently some people require a hierarchical flow-chart.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

grecorj said:


> The fake NBS website refers to the show as "Studio 60":
> 
> http://studio60theshow.com/


As does Post #90 and the NBC web site in describing the fictional Studio 60 late night comedy sketch show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Gotta disagree. There haven't been a lot of scripted shows that I felt were so good that I was outraged they were cancelled. Second, I think reality tv exists because it is at least more interesting and less predictable than most of the drek networks put out. Without the insane amount of reality tv we've seen, I don't think shows like Lost or Veronica Mars would ever have been created.


 How does the existence of reality TV have anything to do with quality scripted fare like LOST and VM?


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> Amanda Peet is the president of the network. Steven Webber is higher up in the chain in the company that owns said network. Similar to the president at NBC having to report to someone at GE.


That may be the case. I read in some review of the show that she was the President of the Entertainment Division. Which could leave Jack (Webber) to be the overall President of NBS (who of course would have his own bosses at the conglomerate's headquarters). Webber's character seemed to be more television-centric, which makes me lean more towards this heirarchy.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

newsposter said:


> and in todays litigious society wouldn't josh have sued the pants off the network and her boyfriend and gotten even more money than he would earn for a movie?


What would Danny (Bradley Whitford's character) have sued for? The only person who did anything wrong was Jordan McDeere's (Amanda Peete's character) ex-boyfriend who told her about the failed drug test. Doubt that guy has any money worth suing over.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

grecorj said:


> Good show (saw via Netflix originally & again after 9/18 airing); I suspect it will have broad appeal to Sorkin fans, but I'm not sure how it will play beyond that audience.


One advantage it has is it doesn't have that highly-stylized, machine-gun delivery that his characters have usually had in the past. I always liked it, but I know a lot of people found it off-putting.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

dswallow said:


> I watched it back when it was up on Bittorrent. And I watched it again tonight. It survived a multiple viewing quite well; a very good show. Now if only a real network would put someone like Jordan in charge...


Ditto on the multiple viewings. We enjoyed it both times as well.

And Jordan can be in charge of my network anytime!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

devdogaz said:


> How does the existence of reality TV have anything to do with quality scripted fare like LOST and VM?


Because reality tv made it harder to succeed with scripted shows because they were competing with reality TV, which tends to trounce regurgitated scripted crap in viewership. Survival of the fittest type stuff. Therefore in order to succeed, a scripted TV show needs to be innovative, interesting, high quality, that sort of thing. Obviously not the 100% accurate rule, but I do feel that the quality of scripted television has improved immensely in the past 10 years, largely because reality tv is more interesting to people than mediocre scripted TV. But, I'm going by the best examples, not the average examples. There is still a lot of drek that inexplicably remains on the air.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Mike Farrington said:


> That may be the case. I read in some review of the show that she was the President of the Entertainment Division. Which could leave Jack (Webber) to be the overall President of NBS (who of course would have his own bosses at the conglomerate's headquarters). Webber's character seemed to be more television-centric, which makes me lean more towards this heirarchy.


Or you could simply look at Post #90 in this thread, which gives their titles, which came directly from the show's website.


----------



## sonnik (Jul 7, 2000)

I was unclear on the name of the show-within-the-show also.

I observed that on in-studio or dressing room monitors there was a looping logo with a "20" - inside the zero of the twenty there was a "60" - which seemed to imply the show was celebrating it's twentieth year on the air.

Reviewing the opening sting and websites, I believe the fictional show is also called "Studio 60"


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

drew2k said:


> As does Post #90 and the NBC web site in describing the fictional Studio 60 late night comedy sketch show.


All of those are non canon though 

If one wants to explain, perhaps something like "FNiH" never caught on, so everyone refers to the show as "Studio 60" much like we refer to that Saturday program as "SNL."


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

...that it was shot too dark?

I kept squinting, and by the time it was over, I had a headache.

It's an okay pilot, but if they don't lighten it a bit, it's going to be a long season.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

YCantAngieRead said:


> ...that it was shot too dark?
> 
> I kept squinting, and by the time it was over, I had a headache.
> 
> It's an okay pilot, but if they don't lighten it a bit, it's going to be a long season.


The pilot was very dark, but it's because it all took place at night, after the beginning of a night-time show.

Hopefully future eps will take place during the day and it won't be too bad.


----------



## AstroDad (Jan 21, 2003)

I didn't have a problem, but I was watching it in pitch dark


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Those studios are in fact pretty dark, from my very limited personal experience.


----------



## jgerry (Aug 29, 2001)

I think it's possibly a style thing for Sorkin -- The West Wing was shot pretty dark & contrasty as well.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

as was much of Sports Night.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

I thought this was pretty good. The network hierarchy and national anthem thing kind of threw me off a bit, but I just ignored the ambiguity and watched on.

I'm actually interested to see what happens next, so I guess I'll keep watching. SP stays for now.


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

grecorj said:


> The fake NBS website refers to the show as "Studio 60":
> 
> http://studio60theshow.com/


The fake website makes reference to a fictitious NBS.com.

I wonder how the National Book Service feels about everyone using up all of its bandwidth.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

AstroDad said:


> I didn't have a problem, but I was watching it in pitch dark


+1


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

It's a new filming technique. If the set is dark, that saves time and money on building the set, and setting up the background. They do this on CSI all of the time. If it was light out you would notice that they are in downtown LA and not in Las Vegas. Whenever I watch shows that mostly take place in the dark, I end up falling asleep.


PS. I'm suprised the spoiler nerds haven't pounced on this thread yet.


----------



## SuperZippy (Feb 12, 2002)

shouldn't there be a spoiler tag on this thread...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

What I got from it:

The show within the show is called "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." Not only did they call it that in conversation but it was on logos all over the place.

The show airs live (of course it was played up it was live since they wouldn't CARE if the button was hit or not during the live on-air tirade).

The show is on Friday nights. Not only did not-Chandler drop the Friday night line but when Amanda Peet's character said she wanted it all settled for a press conference on Monday, she was asked if she thought she could get it all done on a FRIDAY NIGHT.

The show is not primetime. It is late night. It was already dark in LA, so that meant it had to be later evening if not night. An 8:30 showing would be an 11:30 show on the East Coast. It being dark in LA already (and dinnertime to boot) means it couldn't have been September, had to be later in the year, more into winter.

Is that enough analysis for trivial items. It helps that I watched closely but also that I watched it twice. Once on DVD and once on TiVo.

Some of this discussion reminds me of movie reviews that say "They never explained...." but they have a full discussion. Guess not everyone uses their TiVos to go the bathroom or to back up if they missed dialog.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> An 8:30 showing would be an 11:30 show on the East Coast. It being dark in LA already (and dinnertime to boot) means it couldn't have been September, had to be later in the year, more into winter.


It's already dark here at 8:30.  Otherwise, good breakdown.


----------



## gunbunny (Sep 3, 2006)

The corporate hierarchy isn't that complicated. 

Wilson White (Ed Asner) is the chairman of the Tunney Media Group.
The Tunney Media Group owns the National Broadcasting System.
Jack Rudolph (Stephen Weber) is Chairman of the National Broadcasting System. Judd Hirsch's character referred to him as Chairman of NBS. He runs everything at NBS. He hired Jordan McDeere. He can fire her.
Jordan McDeere (Amanda Peet) is President of Network Broadcasting System. She is subordinate to Jack Rudolph. She is directly in charge of the programming.

This exactly maps to how NBC is.
Bob Wright is Chairman and CEO of NBC.
Jeff Zucker is President of NBC.
NBC is owned by NBC Universal, which is owned by GE.

The show within a show is clearly titled "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", just like the show within a show on Sports Night was "Sports Night." All the characters refer to the show as Studio 60. The very first words of the pilot are "How many of you guys have been watching Studio 60 since high school?" All the logos seen, on the monitors, on the totebags, on the building itself, say Studio 60. The only time "It's Friday Night in Hollywood" is mentioned is the introduction at the very beginning.

BTW, the logo for the fictional series Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is the circle with the number 60 inside, and the logo for the actual series Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is the square box with words Studio 60.

As for how believable that Matthew Perry's character would break up with his girlfriend because she went on the 700 Club. Well, Matthew Perry's character is clearly Aaron Sorkin and Sarah Paulson's character is clearly Kristin Chenoweth. Kristin Chenoweth appeared on the 700 Club and Aaron Sorkin has a deep antipathy towards Pat Robertson.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Gunnyman said:


> as was much of Sports Night.


I recall Sports Night being pretty bright, except for the occasional in-studio scene. The Mary Tyler Moore office area scenes seemed comedy-bright to me.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

grecorj said:


> The fake NBS website refers to the show as "Studio 60":
> 
> http://studio60theshow.com/


Are you sure that's an "official" website and not some random piece of fanfic? There's an awful lot of dead links and non-link links on that page.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Registrant:
General Electric Company
Internet Registrations
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828-0001
US


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

busyba said:


> Are you sure that's an "official" website and not some random piece of fanfic? There's an awful lot of dead links and non-link links on that page.


The official page for the show, http://www.nbc.com/Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip/, has a link to the page. It's legit.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> The official page for the show, http://www.nbc.com/Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip/, has a link to the page. It's legit.


Then they need to hire some better website designers....


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Apparently someone who works for the show was even confused about the heirarchy of the network suits on the show.

If you go to NBC's Show site, there is a link to a blog called Defaker, the Studio 60 Gossip Blog. This blog is within the show's fiction, purportedly reporting on the events of the pilot episode as if they really happened. However, one of the lines in the blog reads like this:


Defaker said:


> It so happens that as Studio 60 was airing, a dinner was being held for the brand-spanking new NBS president, the scrumptious Jordan McDeere. Shes the real deal: beauty, brains, and a set of cajones to die for. Yeah, yeah, the NBS parent companys stock dipped when it was announced shed be taking over, but I have my money on her to go all the way.
> 
> Apparently, her little wine and dine was interrupted with the news of Wess tirade and her immediate reaction was to hire Matt Albie and Danny Tripp to take the helm over at Studio 60. This didnt sit well with NBS hatchet man Jack Rudolph. For those not in the know, a few years back Matt and Danny were Studio 60 staffers until Jack showed them the door. There were always rumors that their hero Wes Mendell opened it for them, and well be sure to bring you more on that as the story plays out. *Of course, Jack wasnt too happy with Jordans brainstorm, but he had to kowtow to his new boss.* Chick power, yall!


Oops! Looks like someone didn't pay close enough attention.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

busyba said:


> Then they need to hire some better website designers....


If you read the page, that's a part of the story the page is telling... they supposedly took most of the page down, and "the Studio 60 Website will return very soon."


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

BTW, what's the over/under on the percentage of viewers who have to ask "Who's Paddy Chayefsky"?


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

I don't like how people are saying "Duh, Steven Weber's her boss." I realized he was above her when I was watching, but if this a show about behind the scenes, I don't want to have to go to NBC's website just to find out what everyone's job is. That's just lazy storytelling. It's assuming we automatically know the structure and heirarchy of a network and I sure don't.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

busyba said:


> BTW, what's the over/under on the percentage of viewers who have to ask "Who's Paddy Chayefsky"?


I infered from the show he was the screenwriter for the movie "Network" I just googled and saw I was correct.


----------



## gunbunny (Sep 3, 2006)

Gunnyman said:


> I infered from the show he was the screenwriter for the movie "Network" I just googled and saw I was correct.


Paddy Chayefsky indeed did write the screenplay for _Network_. Much of that movie was based on his own experience, because Paddy Chayefsky was one of the greatest television writer. In television's nascent days in the 50s, he was known for writing drama with finely crafted dialogue and several of them were remade into movies, like Marty. I'm sure that some people have drawn comparisons between him and Aaron Sorkin.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

SuperZippy said:


> shouldn't there be a spoiler tag on this thread...


Uh. Confused. There is. Even if it was late addition to the title of the thread, episode threads with a name of an episode and a date assume that all spoilers are fair game.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Uh. Confused. There is. Even if it was late addition to the title of the thread, episode threads with a name of an episode and a date assume that all spoilers are fair game.


I started a separate thread for the "dark" issue, and apparently it was incorporated here. My thread didn't have a spoiler tag because I didn't think the discussion of the light level of the episode would be considered a spoiler.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

By the way, since I finally remembered to look it up: in one of the exterior shots of the "Studio 60" theater, there was a street sign visible, showing that it's on the 6100 block of Sunset Boulevard.

What's there in the "real" world is an old building called Columbia Square that housed the CBS radio network in the pre-television days, and which now houses the CBS station in L.A., KCBS-TV, and their sister independent station KCAL. Those TV stations are soon going to move elsewhere, and the building is probably going to be torn down...to build condos, not a real-life "Studio 60."

At any rate, the 6100 block of Sunset is a few miles east of what's technically "the Sunset Strip," but I guess they decided at some point that "Studio 60 A Few Miles East of the Sunset Strip" wasn't a very good title.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

PJO1966 said:


> Amazing show. It had me hooked right off the bat. I've never seen Sports Night or West Wing. I guess I missed out.


  
Oh. My.

Darn right you missed out. Get thee to Netflix. STAT.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

My wife and I LOVED this show. We moved at the beginning of August so we have just not kept up with the various advance bittorrent stuff and even had some difficulty getting our Entertainment Weekly subscription for a while so I did not have much of a preconceived notion going in. This show knocked my socks off. The dialog and the multi-layered story lines all reminded me about what I loved about the West Wing before it got all wacky.

I am half surprised the network let the show be made considering the stinging indictment of network TV that it is.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> What would Danny (Bradley Whitford's character) have sued for? The only person who did anything wrong was Jordan McDeere's (Amanda Peete's character) ex-boyfriend who told her about the failed drug test. Doubt that guy has any money worth suing over.


i thought that her using the illegal material to blackmail would be something like a prosecutor using evidence from a warrantless search..

shows you i'm no lawyer....i thought you could sue the woman, the boyfriend etc all for blackmail and a whole host of other things like lost future wages due to blackballing



jgerry said:


> I think it's possibly a style thing for Sorkin -- The West Wing was shot pretty dark & contrasty as well.


good to know it wasn't just my local ota feed going bad. I've always hear the 'experts' say that our nbc station was the worst because of their sub channels hogging bandwidth. The show did look grainy even to me.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

NoThru22 said:


> I don't like how people are saying "Duh, Steven Weber's her boss." I realized he was above her when I was watching, but if this a show about behind the scenes, I don't want to have to go to NBC's website just to find out what everyone's job is. That's just lazy storytelling. It's assuming we automatically know the structure and heirarchy of a network and I sure don't.


shh ur gonna make the people that got it the first time mad and convince them that since we are all nielsen people and didnt understand the structure that we hold the show's fate in our hands


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

NoThru22 said:


> I don't like how people are saying "Duh, Steven Weber's her boss."


It seemed pretty obvious by watching the show.


> I realized he was above her when I was watching


  So did I, and a lot of people...



> but if this a show about behind the scenes, I don't want to have to go to NBC's website just to find out what everyone's job is.


You don't have to go to a website to find out that Weber's character was higher up the totem pole - the specific job title is not really that important, at least at this point. It WAS clear to you that Weber was higher than Amanda Peet's character, and that's what some people apparently got confused by.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> It seemed pretty obvious by watching the show.
> 
> So did I, and a lot of people...
> 
> You don't have to go to a website to find out that Weber's character was higher up the totem pole - the specific job title is not really that important, at least at this point. It WAS clear to you that Weber was higher than Amanda Peet's character, and that's what some people apparently got confused by.


I don't think many people were confused about Weber outranking Peet's character.

I think what was just confusing was the title of "president" given to Peet. For those of us who don't know the typical hierarchy of television studios, the title of president means total power, the big boss, the "man" (or "woman" in this case.)

Then just minutes later, she has some guy (Weber) bossing her around and threatening her job.

At this point, she didn't look like the president of anything. They basically presented her as a middle manager in this show.

I assumed that Weber was either chairman of the board or some other high-ranking guy on the board but the show never let us know for sure.

I spent the 2nd half of the show asking my wife "who is that guy and what rank must he have to boss around the president?"

Very confusing and poor storytelling on that one minor issue.


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> Apparently someone who works for the show was even confused about the heirarchy of the network suits on the show.
> 
> If you go to NBC's Show site, there is a link to a blog called Defaker, the Studio 60 Gossip Blog. This blog is within the show's fiction, purportedly reporting on the events of the pilot episode as if they really happened. However, one of the lines in the blog reads like this:





> Of course, Jack wasnt too happy with Jordans brainstorm, but he had to kowtow to his new boss. Chick power, yall!





devdogaz said:


> Oops! Looks like someone didn't pay close enough attention.


My take on this puts the emphasis on *his*, meaning his choice of boss or the boss that he hired, not that she was his boss.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Outside of the television industry, many companies have positions for both a president and CEO, and the president always reports to the CEO. This is not a situation unique to "NBS" and the Studio 60 TV show.

There are also some companies, TiVo Inc. for example, for which the positions are held by one person.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

brott said:


> My take on this puts the emphasis on *his*, meaning his choice of boss or the boss that he hired, not that she was his boss.


Wow, I'm not sure how you get that interpretation from the line that was written. It' pretty clear that the writer had no idea that Jack was Jordan's boss.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

Supfreak26 said:


> I don't think many people were confused about Weber outranking Peet's character.
> 
> I think what was just confusing was the title of "president" given to Peet. For those of us who don't know the typical hierarchy of television studios, the title of president means total power, the big boss, the "man" (or "woman" in this case.)
> 
> ...


They *clearly* described the heirarchy at the dinner. Was not confusing, in the very least. I do not know how they could have made it any more clear without pausing the show and putting in a voiceover, at which point I would have cancelled the season pass for them assuming I'm too dumb to notice why this scene was put in. Throughout the episode, Webber's character was clearly the man in charge. Again, it does not matter what their titles are, it is the role they play in the overall heirarchy that matters, and they explained that flawlessly within the first 5 minutes.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

drew2k said:


> I think Oliver Stone only needs to be bonded if he's also the Exec Producer. Danny Albie (Bradley Widford) was the Exec Producer, so basicaly he was responsible for EVERYTHNG that happened with the move, and that's why he's the guy that needed to be bonded.


That's what the web site said. But when Danny and Matt were having their talk in the car, Danny told Matt to "get another director."


----------



## SuperZippy (Feb 12, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Uh. Confused. There is. Even if it was late addition to the title of the thread, episode threads with a name of an episode and a date assume that all spoilers are fair game.


take the stick out of your arse...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SuperZippy said:


> take the stick out of your arse...


It was a legitimate question. Another thread, where there didn't need to be spoilers in the title, was merged with this one (not sure why). It was a legitimate question in that thread, and once it got merged here, it didn't make any sense.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

NoThru22 said:


> I don't like how people are saying "Duh, Steven Weber's her boss." I realized he was above her when I was watching, but if this a show about behind the scenes, I don't want to have to go to NBC's website just to find out what everyone's job is. That's just lazy storytelling. It's assuming we automatically know the structure and heirarchy of a network and I sure don't.


I thought the 30 seconds at the dinner table fairly clearly spelled out the hiearchy of the network. Where Ed Asner commented on Steven Weber hiring her to run the network.

I think you could not watch anything else in the entire show but that one scene and know who was in charge of who. I am a little suprised that so many people seem to have an issue with this.



Supfreak26 said:


> I don't think many people were confused about Weber outranking Peet's character.
> 
> I think what was just confusing was the title of "president" given to Peet. For those of us who don't know the typical hierarchy of television studios, the title of president means total power, the big boss, the "man" (or "woman" in this case.)


That is pretty much the structure of every company out there. Many companies do have a dual CEO/Preisdent role, but in a lot of cases they are seperate. In no legally organized company is the President the supreme head honco. That is not how business' are organized.

Hopefully people can treat it as a learning experience and not view it as a flaw in the show, as it is not exactly obscure knowledge.


----------



## BetterYeti (Aug 24, 2004)

johnperkins21 said:


> They *clearly* described the heirarchy at the dinner. Was not confusing, in the very least. I do not know how they could have made it any more clear without pausing the show and putting in a voiceover, at which point I would have cancelled the season pass for them assuming I'm too dumb to notice why this scene was put in. Throughout the episode, Webber's character was clearly the man in charge. Again, it does not matter what their titles are, it is the role they play in the overall heirarchy that matters, and they explained that flawlessly within the first 5 minutes.


+1. Titles have become so elastic in corporate America, it's a mistake to assume title "President" means top person. E.g. someone might be president of a division while there is an ultimate top corporate president. Also, IIRC, Amanda Peet's character is somewhat based on Jamie Tarsis, groundbreaker as a woman President of Entertainment at ABC. (News division had a separate president.)


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

Great episode except that it's hard to accept that one could have back surgery, be on vicodan and percocet and whatever and be perfectly lucid two days later. That's a stretch. That having been said, we can't wait for episode 2.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Supfreak26 said:


> Or maybe they could introduce the characters a little better.
> 
> The Jack Rudolph character was the only one I was confused about. It wasn't obvious from the start that he was Jordan's boss but they established that pretty quickly. What I was confused about was that they never mentioned who he was or what his title was. And he was introduced immediately after Jordan was introduced as president. In my eyes, president = big boss. And here she is getting bossed around from the start by some guy they didn't bother to introduce. It could've been handled better, IMO.
> 
> Very minor complaint for a pilot. Other than that little nitpick, I thought it was great!


He was her boss. Does it matter what exact title he has?

I liked the show a lot, but I've never seen The West Wing. TWW irritated me so much the first time I tried to watch it, with the dimly lit offices - yes, I could not watch it, because no office is lit like that, and it bugged the hell out of me.  This show was shot in the same way, but at least it wasn't set in an office environment, so it was easier to accept...

By the way, I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I liked the "twist" at the end about who wrote the "Crazy Christians" skit, and that it was the real reason for the break-up. This seemed to me like it could be "Sorkin-style writing" although I've never seen anything written by him. I'm thinking I might have to check out TWW after all.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

johnperkins21 said:


> They *clearly* described the heirarchy at the dinner. Was not confusing, in the very least. I do not know how they could have made it any more clear without pausing the show and putting in a voiceover, at which point I would have cancelled the season pass for them assuming I'm too dumb to notice why this scene was put in. Throughout the episode, Webber's character was clearly the man in charge. Again, it does not matter what their titles are, it is the role they play in the overall heirarchy that matters, and they explained that flawlessly within the first 5 minutes.


Well I guess my wife and I are both idiots then. 

Maybe you don't care what his title is but I did. It wouldn't have taken them 2 seconds to put a little blurb in with his title and I would've been happy.

But, like I said, it's an extremely minor nitpick and overall I absolutely loved the show.

I guess I'd better not critisize anything about this show in the future lest I face the wraith of all the fanboys here.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

MickeS said:


> He was her boss. Does it matter what exact title he has?


Normally, no. When she has the title of "President of the Network," yeah, it does.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Supfreak26 said:


> I guess I'd better not criticize anything about this show in the future lest I face the wraith of all the fanboys here.


Well, it's not just fanboys. There have been a lot of criticisms of shows lately that are about things that are explained clearly in the show itself. In one case, somebody actually complained that he couldn't watch the show while surfing the internet--as if this were a problem with the show, and not the poster. I think that's the base problem--some people just don't want to pay attention, but insist that all shows pander to them by making everything so obvious that it can be understood without paying attention.

And with a show like The Wire or Arrested Development, where you not only have to pay attention but have to remember small details from previous episodes and seasons, I can understand where people might legitimately feel lost. But come on, folks--the network hierarchy was laid out clearly and succinctly. If you were too busy surfing the web to catch it, that's not the show's fault.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, it's not just fanboys. There have been a lot of criticisms of shows lately that are about things that are explained clearly in the show itself. In one case, somebody actually complained that he couldn't watch the show while surfing the internet--as if this were a problem with the show, and not the poster. I think that's the base problem--some people just don't want to pay attention, but insist that all shows pander to them by making everything so obvious that it can be understood without paying attention.
> 
> And with a show like The Wire or Arrested Development, where you not only have to pay attention but have to remember small details from previous episodes and seasons, I can understand where people might legitimately feel lost. But come on, folks--the network hierarchy was laid out clearly and succinctly. If you were too busy surfing the web to catch it, that's not the show's fault.


I think we all "got" the hierarchy. We all got who was above whom. But when they give someone the title of "President of the Network," it makes a bit less sense to have multiple people over her head, yet still involved in day to day issues at the network. Especially when they don't, at least once, give the title of the other guy.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

I think you're all putting way too much weight on the role of President. If you remember from your Civics class, the President is a figurehead with virtually no power. Though our recent US Presidents have been given more power (and taken it illegally, but that's a different topic), if you read the Constitution you will see that the President was given the least amount of power in our government. I think this may be where you all have gotten confused, by thinking the role of president is actually the head of something, when it's really just a glamor position.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Maybe, just maybe things will become more clear next week or in the following weeks. This just the first hour of a 22 week season. 

Now, I figured it out, but it could have been made more clear. In my mind I pretty much just assumed this was set up like NBC with NBC Universal and GE and that made it make more sense.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aindik said:


> I think we all "got" the hierarchy. We all got who was above whom. But when they give someone the title of "President of the Network," it makes a bit less sense to have multiple people over her head, yet still involved in day to day issues at the network. Especially when they don't, at least once, give the title of the other guy.


Well, as has been mentioned in this thread, in this day and age the President of a company normally has several people above him. And it's pretty widely known that many companies (like all the networks) are in fact owned by, and responsible to, bigger companies. It surprises me that anybody would be surprised that the President of a company would have superiors, especially considering the regularity with which they get fired.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Lee L said:


> Maybe, just maybe things will become more clear next week or in the following weeks. This just the first hour of a 22 week season.
> 
> Now, I figured it out, but it could have been made more clear. In my mind I pretty much just assumed this was set up like NBC with NBC Universal and GE and that made it make more sense.


Well, NBC Universal has only existed for, what, three years? Before that, NBC was a direct subsidiary of GE (right?). I don't think Jack Welch would be over at 30 Rock if there was a problem with Lorne Michaels on SNL. He would leave it to the President of NBC to handle.

Or maybe there was a CEO of the National Broadcasting Company, who, under him, had a President of the TV Network, and a President of the owned and operated TV stations group, etc. But that's not something normal people (i.e. people that don't post on TV message boards) know. By using the term "President of the Network" it opens up the question of who exactly it is that's above her but below the Ed Asner character.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, as has been mentioned in this thread, in this day and age the President of a company normally has several people above him. And it's pretty widely known that many companies (like all the networks) are in fact owned by, and responsible to, bigger companies. It surprises me that anybody would be surprised that the President of a company would have superiors, especially considering the regularity with which they get fired.


Well, even the CEO of a company can be fired by the Board of Directors or by vote of the shareholders. That doesn't mean the CEO isn't the highest person in the company. Or, phrased another way, the highest person in the company who is involved in its day to day operations.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

But why does anyone care what their titles are? The hierarchy was clearly established. Asner --> Weber --> Peet. That's all I need to know. Their titles are irrelevant at this (and perhaps at any) stage in the show.


----------



## ced6 (Jul 30, 2003)

trainman said:


> By the way, since I finally remembered to look it up: in one of the exterior shots of the "Studio 60" theater, there was a street sign visible, showing that it's on the 6100 block of Sunset Boulevard.
> 
> What's there in the "real" world is an old building called Columbia Square that housed the CBS radio network in the pre-television days, and which now houses the CBS station in L.A., KCBS-TV, and their sister independent station KCAL. Those TV stations are soon going to move elsewhere, and the building is probably going to be torn down...to build condos, not a real-life "Studio 60."


Just to add some more information - I believe that the building exterior they showed was a computer-enhanced image of the Hollywood Palladium (6215 Sunset Blvd.). Also, when Matthew Perry was standing beside the car outside the studio, that definitely looked like the side entrance to the Palladium (and I'm pretty sure in the background you could see the building that houses Coffee Bean - okay, it houses more than that but the only part that interests me is Coffee Bean). Across the street are the Nickelodeon studios.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

aindik said:


> I think we all "got" the hierarchy. We all got who was above whom. But when they give someone the title of "President of the Network," it makes a bit less sense to have multiple people over her head, yet still involved in day to day issues at the network. Especially when they don't, at least once, give the title of the other guy.


Exactly.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

My only question is ...

If you didn't get the hierarchy or are upset that the titles weren't apparent, are you still going to watch next Monday?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

aindik said:


> Well, NBC Universal has only existed for, what, three years? Before that, NBC was a direct subsidiary of GE (right?). I don't think Jack Welch would be over at 30 Rock if there was a problem with Lorne Michaels on SNL. He would leave it to the President of NBC to handle.
> 
> .


You forgot their French phase (with Vivendi)


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> But why does anyone care what their titles are? The hierarchy was clearly established. Asner --> Weber --> Peet. That's all I need to know. Their titles are irrelevant at this (and perhaps at any) stage in the show.


I care for the many reasons already stated in this thread.

Maybe it goes against the "dumb downed" grain of mainstream TV in that the president is usually the top dog. Maybe that's what threw me off. I'm so used to the norm that this threw me a curveball.

It's not really a big deal and I'm shocked how far this has blown out of proportion.

I think the bigger question is why are so many people in this thread so freaked out that a few of us thought the introduction of Peet and Weber was a bit confusing?


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I guess I'll chip in and say I was in the minority-I didn't really get the hierarchy, either.

But I just figured it'd become clearer in later shows.

I'l also say I wasn't the biggest fan of the show. But I do enjoy Matthew Perry a lot, so I'll give it a few more weeks.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Back to other discussions. The woman who played Matt's estranged wife, the born again christian. who is that? She looks so familiar but I can't place her. Maybe she was on Deadwood as Ms Isringhausen? If it is her, she must have had a facelift go bad or something as her face looks strange to me.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> But why does anyone care what their titles are? The hierarchy was clearly established. Asner --> Weber --> Peet. That's all I need to know. Their titles are irrelevant at this (and perhaps at any) stage in the show.


If they hadn't used ANY titles, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. But they used her title. That's what made it confusing.

Also, Weber's character's title would help me in determining if he was doing his job or micromanaging his subordinates.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

drew2k said:


> My only question is ...
> 
> If you didn't get the hierarchy or are upset that the titles weren't apparent, are you still going to watch next Monday?


Do you not read past the one critisism I've made of the show to see my glowing opinion of the show as a whole?

I've mentioned it twice (now thrice) in this thread.

I LOVED THE SHOW!

Of course I'll be back next week.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> You forgot their French phase (with Vivendi)


I thought Vivendi owned Universal before GE and NBC ever got involved with Universal. IOW, I thought Vivendi was the company that sold Universal to NBC.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

drew2k said:


> My only question is ...
> 
> If you didn't get the hierarchy or are upset that the titles weren't apparent, are you still going to watch next Monday?


I'll certainly record next Monday. How's that?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Supfreak26 said:


> Do you not read past the one critisism I've made of the show to see my glowing opinion of the show as a whole?
> 
> I've mentioned it twice (now thrice) in this thread.
> 
> ...


I'm glad to hear that! Sorry if you felt my question was directed solely to you, but it meant for everyone. My thinking is if you ("everyone-you") care this much about Jordan's title and the hierarchy, you already have a vested interest in the show and were more than likely to answer, "Yes - I'll be back!"


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

aindik said:


> I thought Vivendi owned Universal before GE and NBC ever got involved with Universal. IOW, I thought Vivendi was the company that sold Universal to NBC.


You're right. Universal was owned by MCA, during the 80's. Universal was sold to Matsu****a (Panasonic) briefly, then to Seagram's, then finally to Vivendi. Vivendi finally sold Universal to NBC.

NBC has always been, and continues to be, a subsidiary of GE. GE currently owns 80% of NBC Universal.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

ced6 said:


> Just to add some more information - I believe that the building exterior they showed was a computer-enhanced image of the Hollywood Palladium (6215 Sunset Blvd.). Also, when Matthew Perry was standing beside the car outside the studio, that definitely looked like the side entrance to the Palladium (and I'm pretty sure in the background you could see the building that houses Coffee Bean - okay, it houses more than that but the only part that interests me is Coffee Bean). Across the street are the Nickelodeon studios.


I think you're right. My partner also mentioned that it looked like the backside of The Palladium.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> You're right. Universal was owned by MCA, during the 80's. Universal was sold to Matsu****a (Panasonic) briefly, then to Seagram's, then finally to Vivendi. Vivendi finally sold Universal to NBC.
> 
> NBC has always been, and continues to be, a subsidiary of GE. GE currently owns 80% of NBC Universal.


Wouldn't NBC now be a subsidiary of NBC Universal (which is a partly-owned subsidiary of General Electric)?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

aindik said:


> Wouldn't NBC now be a subsidiary of NBC Universal (which is a partly-owned subsidiary of General Electric)?


Good point. Quite possibly.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Lee L said:


> Back to other discussions. The woman who played Matt's estranged wife, the born again christian. who is that? She looks so familiar but I can't place her. Maybe she was on Deadwood as Ms Isringhausen? If it is her, she must have had a facelift go bad or something as her face looks strange to me.


IMDB.com is your friend.



> ```
> "Deadwood"
> - Amalgamation and Capital (2005) TV Episode .... Alice Isringhausen
> - Complications (2005) TV Episode .... Alice Isringhausen
> ...


Zap2It.com also is helpful (imaged as Alice Isringhausen):









More images here at Google from various roles, pub shots, etc.

Bonus points to the people that recognize the link to the Whedon-verse without peeking


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Lee L said:


> Back to other discussions. The woman who played Matt's estranged wife, the born again christian. who is that? She looks so familiar but I can't place her. Maybe she was on Deadwood as Ms Isringhausen? If it is her, she must have had a facelift go bad or something as her face looks strange to me.


I got the impression that they were just dating, not that they married. (Supposedly the relationship is premised in part on Sorkin's RL relationship with Broadway actress Kristin Chenowith).

She also had a small part in _Serenity_ - she was the scientist/doctor in the holovid on Miranda who became a Reaver happy meal.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I got the impression that they were just dating, not that they married. (Supposedly the relationship is premised in part on Sorkin's RL relationship with Broadway actress Kristin Chenowith).
> 
> She also had a small part in _Serenity_ - she was the scientist/doctor in the holovid on Miranda who became a Reaver happy meal.


Ooops, there goes my bonus points already


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

drew2k said:


> I'm glad to hear that! Sorry if you felt my question was directed solely to you, but it meant for everyone. My thinking is if you ("everyone-you") care this much about Jordan's title and the hierarchy, you already have a vested interest in the show and were more than likely to answer, "Yes - I'll be back!"


No worries.

You have a good point there. If I'm analyzing the show this much already then I'm definitely hooked in. 

I have a bad feeling that this show won't make it, though. Then again, it's not on FOX!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> You're right. Universal was owned by MCA, during the 80's. Universal was sold to Matsu****a (Panasonic) briefly, then to Seagram's, then finally to Vivendi. Vivendi finally sold Universal to NBC.
> 
> NBC has always been, and continues to be, a subsidiary of GE. GE currently owns 80% of NBC Universal.


That's right. But wasn't it known as "Vivendi-Universal"? Then, after Vevendi dumped it, it became NBC Universal.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

bdowell said:


> Ooops, there goes my bonus points already


Sweet!  I actually didn't even see the last line in your post before I wrote mine.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

aindik said:


> I think we all "got" the hierarchy. We all got who was above whom. But when they give someone the title of "President of the Network," it makes a bit less sense to have multiple people over her head, *yet still involved in day to day issues at the network*.


I wouldn't necessarily characterize the Executive Producer of the network's flagship program going apesh!t on live television as a "day to day issue at the network". 

At least for their sake I'd hope not.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I gotta disagree that it is obvious exactly what the hierarchy is technically based solely on what we saw. It is obvious that asner has immense power and woods seems to have power over peet, but it is not obvious to me whether these are officially titled positions or merely positions of clout. I almost got a karl rove vibe from the asner guy.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> I gotta disagree that it is obvious exactly what the hierarchy is technically based solely on what we saw. It is obvious that asner has immense power and woods seems to have power over peet, but it is not obvious to me whether these are officially titled positions or merely positions of clout. I almost got a karl rove vibe from the asner guy.


I have this bat here, so I may as well keep beating the dead horse.

I'm not sure that at this point it matters if they are "officially titled positions or merely positions of clout." There is a definite heirarchy of power evident at the dinner. That is all the exposition needed to tell the story.

The reason it scares me that people here didn't get it, is that most people here care. It seems to me that most of you guys want quality television, which this is. It requires that you not only pay attention, but have a certain level of intelligence to get what is going on, unlike something more akin to American Idol or even The Simpsons (which I love). Personally, I love this show, and if people here are confused, imagine how the general public feels. I'm just afraid that this sentiment will cause this show to get cancelled. I am beating this dead horse out of fear, nothing more.

Of all the new shows from last season that I liked, the only one that made it was My Name Is Earl. All the others got cancelled, and this is definitely one show I don't want to see cancelled.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

TIVOSciolist said:


> The anti-Christian lines were predictable and tiresome. However, overall, this show had some of the best writing I've seen in a long time.


Agreed.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Sports Night is available on DVD -- the entire series in one box set. If you can find it in a Blockbuster or on NetFlix it's well worth it. As much as I hate it when my favorite shows get cancelled early (Sports Night and AD being top on my list) at least I can feel happy that getting the entire series on DVD won't cost me three months' salary (imagine how Trek fans feel).



PJO1966 said:


> Amazing show. It had me hooked right off the bat. I've never seen Sports Night or West Wing. I guess I missed out.


----------



## Pab Sungenis (Apr 13, 2002)

edc said:


> There was no mention of the resolution, but a throwaway line of dialogue mentioned that they would need to do something for the West Coast feed.


Interjecting the Real World into the discussion, this happens more often than you think.

Saturday Night Live records their dress rehearsals (which are also in front of a live audience). If anything unexpected happens, they run the rehearsal tape for the West Coast and any re-runs.

I would imagine they would chop off the rant, and run the George Bush sketch from the rehearsal. Then back to the live recording for "Peripheral Vision Man," then back to the rehearsal.


----------



## Pab Sungenis (Apr 13, 2002)

drew2k said:


> By the way, according to the NBC web site, the name of the show-within-the-show is "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", not "Friday Night in Hollywood".


This is similar to the tagline for Saturday Night Live: "LIVE FROM NEW YORK, IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT," dating back to when the show was actually called "NBC's Saturday Night."


----------



## scoblitz (Aug 20, 2005)

We liked it a lot. Definately a keeper.

SB


----------



## itsmeitsmeitsme (Nov 13, 2003)

Finally got to watch this last night. One of the best shows I've seen on TV in a long time.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

johnperkins21 said:


> I do not know how they could have made it any more clear without pausing the show and putting in a voiceover, .


not a fan of the CIC episodes where they put the text under the characters so we knew for the 100th time who the 'speaker of the house' was eh?


----------



## skaeight (Jan 20, 2004)

I just got the opportunity to sit down and watch this show last night, so I'm also catching up on the thread. However, I just have to say how much I loved this show. I'm a huge West Wing fan (Sorkin years, still haven't finished the second to last season yet) and I just thought he picked up right where he left off when he left WW. My wife even really enjoyed this show, and she typically isn't one that gets involved in hour long dramas.

Those expecting a straight comedy, you may want to skip this and just check out 30 Rock. Sorkin's writing is brilliant and funny, however it won't be a knee slapper. I just can't believe how good this was, I was not dissapointed whatsoever and it actually made me feel a little bit better about the fact that Sorkin had left WW.

As far as Peet's character goes, I think it was spot on. She's not a bull dog, but the whole time I got the impression that she was completely in control of the situation and they emphasized how fast she's moved up the company.


----EDIT----

Wow, I can't believe people just argued about the hierarchy for 3 pages. Can we just accept what it is and move on? That's kind of a minor part of the show. I at first wondered about that a little too, but then figured what everyone else said, Peet = Pres of Network which is a subsidey of another company. I figued it would be explained at some point. I'm also willing to bet they'll go into it more. Relax people, they know what they're doing when they write these things, they may not tell you everything right away, or even in the right order, but they'll give it to you eventually.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Pab Sungenis said:


> Interjecting the Real World into the discussion, this happens more often than you think.
> 
> Saturday Night Live records their dress rehearsals (which are also in front of a live audience). If anything unexpected happens, they run the rehearsal tape for the West Coast and any re-runs.
> 
> I would imagine they would chop off the rant, and run the George Bush sketch from the rehearsal. Then back to the live recording for "Peripheral Vision Man," then back to the rehearsal.


Considering that the rant would be huge news, I doubt they'd only allow half the country to see it.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

skaeight said:


> Wow, I can't believe people just argued about the hierarchy for 3 pages.


part of my problem is in the (presumably) lesser quality shows, it's clear off the bat who is whom. Smith, jericho etc all were much clearer to me. Probably just a style thing but still a valid point to the masses that watch any given show.


----------



## skaeight (Jan 20, 2004)

newsposter said:


> part of my problem is in the (presumably) lesser quality shows, it's clear off the bat who is whom. Smith, jericho etc all were much clearer to me. Probably just a style thing but still a valid point to the masses that watch any given show.


I'd rather have a show that I have to think about and they don't sit there and take time to introduce everyone. This show along w/ his other shows takes the approach that you need to pay attention if you want to watch it. No surfing the net while this one (and i also do that for certain shows).


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> Considering that the rant would be huge news, I doubt they'd only allow half the country to see it.


Well, they might. Depending how fast standards and practices figured out how it would play out, or how fast someone would override them.
Stopping it from half the country wouldn't help though, since the rant would be getting replayed on every news show.

(And of course, in this show, once the discission was made to roll with the rant and spin it by bringing back the original writers it would be a pretty mixed message if they blocked the West Coast from seeing the rant.)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jonathan_S said:


> Well, they might. Depending how fast standards and practices figured out how it would play out, or how fast someone would override them.


S&P couldn't care less how it will play out. Their sole goal is to stop objectionable material from going out. So it's entirely about whether S&P is overridden (which in this case they were, by the director).


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> Considering that the rant would be huge news, I doubt they'd only allow half the country to see it.


Ashlee Simpson's lip-syncing problem on "SNL" was replaced with her dress rehearsal performance for the West Coast upon its original broadcast -- but then when that episode was rerun later in the year, because it had been such big news, they ran the version recorded from the live broadcast.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

Of the pilots I've seen so far, this is the best in my book. To me, it's a TEN and I hope it continues. With Sorkin at the helm, I bet I'll not be disappointed, cuz he keeps me interested with his fast action (good for my ADD mind). I'm glad I'm in from the start, cuz I can keep up-to-date with it.

Bravo to this show!


----------



## SuperZippy (Feb 12, 2002)

glad the guys in this thread are so smart...

the rest of us prolly couldn't figure stuff out without you..


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

I just watched this again, and it looks like we WERE given Jack's title early on. Here's the relevant dialog...

Scene: Subway Car set at Studio 60

Wes, to stagehand: *I want Jack Rudolph on the phone.* 
Standards & Practices Guy: Wes, Jack's at a dinner party. 
Wes: Let's disturb him! 
S&P: Jack pays me to make these calls. 
Wes: And Jack pays me to do this show you ridiculous fat ass. 
Wes, to stagehand: What is your name? 
Stagehand: Suzanne. 
Wes: Suzanne, *pick up that phone*, dial 06, tell my secretary that *I want the chairman of NBS.* 
S&P, to Suzanne: Stay right there. 
... 
Wes: I want talk with *Jordan McDeere* on the phone. 
S&P: You can't. 
Wes: She's at a dinner party too? 
Yes, yes she is. It's the same dinner party. It's a dinner party for Jordan McDeere.

...

Scene: Jordan's dinner

Mr. White (Ed Asner): I'd like to offer a toast to *Jordan McDeere*. I've been reviewing your resume. ... *Jack*, I commend you for making such an astute hire. *Jordan*, I welcome you to the *Tunney Media Group*, and as the new *president* of the *National Broadcast System*, I ask only one thing of you: unprecedented success. 
Jordan: Thank you very much, *Mr. White*.


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Stopping it from half the country wouldn't help though, since the rant would be getting replayed on every news show.


Thank god, also, for YouTube.


----------



## footballdude (Apr 16, 2004)

crazywater said:


> Sorry but I thought it was eh...Same old same old. Tell me who in this show makes you want to root for them? No one I saw so far. A bunch of pompous ego-maniacs.
> 
> And we are suppose to believe that Matthew Perry breaks up with his girlfriend because she makes a gospel album and goes on The 700 Club to hawk the album? He equates The 700 Club with a klan meeting?
> 
> It's got potential but so far I see nothing "new" about these tired old story lines...


Completely agree. I watched exactly one episode of The West Wing and the entire hour could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining politics!" After watching this pilot ep, it could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining TV!" I see no reason to watch a show that insults my faith. SP deleted.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

footballdude said:


> Completely agree. I watched exactly one episode of The West Wing and the entire hour could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining politics!" After watching this pilot ep, it could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining TV!" I see no reason to watch a show that insults my faith. SP deleted.


Funny, I thought the show was refreshing in that it had a lead character who happens to be a strong Christian who isn't afraid to espouse her beliefs, but is NOT portrayed in a negative light. It seemed positive to me in that light.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

footballdude said:


> After watching this pilot ep, it could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining TV!"


Wow. This show may be more realistic than I realized!


----------



## sschwart (Apr 4, 2001)

footballdude said:


> Completely agree. I watched exactly one episode of The West Wing and the entire hour could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining politics!" After watching this pilot ep, it could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining TV!" I see no reason to watch a show that insults my faith. SP deleted.


Actually, the summation I would have given to the West Wing would be closer to "Those stupid Republicans are ruining politics", than any religious debate. Actually, other than the pilot where Sorkin did deal with somewhat extremist Christian groups, he tended to stay away from religion.

And since I've treaded close to 2 of the taboo subjects here on TCF, I shall just say that I don't think Sorkin is bashing Christians at all. He took a swing at Pat Robertson to be sure, but I don't think it'll be a recurring theme.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

footballdude said:


> Completely agree. I watched exactly one episode of The West Wing and the entire hour could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining politics!" After watching this pilot ep, it could be summed up by "Those stupid Christians are ruining TV!" I see no reason to watch a show that insults my faith. SP deleted.


I guess we weren't watching the same show, because in the episode I watched, it wasn't the "stupid Christians" who were ruining TV, it was the stupid audience and the stupid network lawyers, working together with organizations who, while they profess to be christian, are more interested in controlling the media than spreading the word about their god and about Jesus. The only christian on the show was neither stupid nor ruining TV.

If your faith was insulted by this, it's not very strong, IMO.


----------



## footballdude (Apr 16, 2004)

MickeS said:


> I guess we weren't watching the same show, because in the episode I watched, it wasn't the "stupid Christians" who were ruining TV, it was the stupid audience and the stupid network lawyers, working together with organizations who, while they profess to be christian, are more interested in controlling the media than spreading the word about their god and about Jesus. The only christian on the show was neither stupid nor ruining TV.
> 
> If your faith was insulted by this, it's not very strong, IMO.


Let's see. They called Pat Robertson a bigot. The supposed Christian in this show said that the people who watch the 700 club have nothing in life but their faith, which paints a picture of poor stupid fools desperately clinging to a con man. The critical plot point was a sketch called 'Crazy Christians'. I think I'd rather watch the 'pimp my sister' show.


----------



## bottomsup (Mar 3, 2006)

^ Totally disagree. I think Sarah Paulson's character, obviously a strong Christian, is not meant to be a punching bag or caricature on the show.

In fact, the show kind of portrayed the one person who mocked her for praying, the drunk guy at the wrap party, as an idiot.

I also like Matthew Perry's character, but he came off as a little dogmatic and not sympathetic, by letting her apperance on the 700 Club be such a sticking point for him.

Neither Harriet, nor the show, mocked the people who watch the 700 Club--as a person of faith, she was drawn by their absolute faith.

And the sketch that was pulled--well, Harriet also looked like a fairly sane person and kind of gathered sympathy, when she said she stood up for a sketch called "Crazy Christians."

So I do not see how it is taking pot shots at Christianity at all, besides the Pat Robertson comment, which was directed at the man (IMO desevedly so) NOT at the faith.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

footballdude said:


> Let's see. They called Pat Robertson a bigot. The supposed Christian in this show said that the people who watch the 700 club have nothing in life but their faith, which paints a picture of poor stupid fools desperately clinging to a con man. The critical plot point was a sketch called 'Crazy Christians'. I think I'd rather watch the 'pimp my sister' show.


If you think that show is less offensive to your faith, then go ahead. Why does it offed your faith when they call Pat Robertson a bigot?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

+1 to what bottomsup wrote. FWIW, I'm a Christian too, and I couldn't stomach the West Wing for similar reasons (although I did make a point of catching the post-9/11 ep in syndication, and I thought that Sorkin handled that very well). But I didn't get that vibe from the _Studio 60_ pilot at all. Sure, he took a shot at Pat Robertson, but I do that all the time, so it didn't bother me. 

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the Harriet character. I thought that, for once, Sorkin has written a sympathetic and honorable person of faith, which is almost unheard-of in Hollywood, where faith is used as a punch line. I also found it highly ironic that it was Aaron Sorkin who is responsible for creating this character.  To be sure, how he handles and evolves the Harriet character is going to determine, in large part, whether I stick with the show or not, but I have high hopes that he will at least be respectful, considering the Harriet character is supposedly loosely based on Sorkin's relationship with Kristen Chenowith.

And can we please find a place on this show for Sabrina Lloyd? Please? Can't Natalie have transitioned from sports broadcasting to network production or something? Please?


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

footballdude said:


> Let's see. They called Pat Robertson a bigot. The supposed Christian in this show said that the people who watch the 700 club have nothing in life but their faith, which paints a picture of poor stupid fools desperately clinging to a con man. The critical plot point was a sketch called 'Crazy Christians'. I think I'd rather watch the 'pimp my sister' show.


I think the fact that your all upset about this only reinforces the points this show was trying to make.

Your decision to not watch is yours. And that's perfectly fine. What irks me is that some extreme christians want to tell me what I can or can't watch.

Studio 60 presented a lot of truths in this episode. Namely every point that you mentioned above. If you can't handle the truth, then don't watch.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

footballdude said:


> They called Pat Robertson a bigot.


True, there are much better and more colorful words to describe Pat Robertson.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Supfreak26 said:


> you can't handle the truth


Just happens to be another great line written by Aaron Sorkin.


----------



## skaeight (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm not quite sure why there seems to be a consensus that the West Wing was anti-faith? President Bartlet's faith was very central to the show in many episodes. There were also many other themes involving other charachters regarding faith (many of them just happened to be Jewish). Yes they may have painted far-right Christians who were lobbying for a particular issue in a negative light at times, but that was more on political rather than religious grounds.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

skaeight said:


> I'm not quite sure why there seems to be a consensus that the West Wing was anti-faith? President Bartlet's faith was very central to the show in many episodes. There were also many other themes involving other charachters regarding faith (many of them just happened to be Jewish). Yes they may have painted far-right Christians who were lobbying for a particular issue in a negative light at times, but that was more on political rather than religious grounds.


I was going to write up a post commenting on the same thing, but you beat me to it. Religion wasn't avoided at all.


----------



## miscellaneous (Oct 28, 2004)

Agreed... I see WW and the points in this episode as being 'anti-extremist'. 

West Wing showed a President who was sometimes wrestling with his faith, sometimes leaned on it, but never in any way critical of people of faith. It also showed characters (mostly Christian and Jewish) leaning on their faith in times of need.

Maybe if Ms. Paulson's character weren't so obviously strong, and a (the?) leader of the cast, I'd say OK. But in the pilot, you had a pill-popping, screw-up guy arguing with his strong-willed ex-girlfriend. She's a talented, powerful woman who happens to be a strong Christian, but at the same time able to stand up for things like 'Crazy Christians'.

Being anti-Pat Robertson is a pretty popular position.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Another strong Christian here who had no problem with the show or how Christians were portrayed. Although we haven't seen the sketch "Crazy Christians," I can almost guarantee it will be some sort of parody of extreme right-wing, intolerant pseudo-Christians rather than making fun of the normal people of faith. IMO, it's these right-wing wackos that give religion a bad name and I'd have no problem if the show takes a few jabs at them. I don't see it as taking a jab at Christianity as a whole, just those who take it a little too far. 

There will probably also be some kind of rip on the Parent's Television Council (or a similar group) as well, which wouldn't bother me in the least.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

johnperkins21 said:


> I have this bat here, so I may as well keep beating the dead horse.
> 
> I'm not sure that at this point it matters if they are "officially titled positions or merely positions of clout." There is a definite heirarchy of power evident at the dinner. That is all the exposition needed to tell the story.
> 
> The reason it scares me that people here didn't get it, is that most people here care.


I agree and i don't really care. But it's kind of insulting to imply that people are too stupid for this show or unable to pick up on the "obvious" just because they think it would be nice to have a little more exposition so we feel comfortable with the characters. That is the only reason I replied on this topic. Some of the folks here are copping some serious attitude over this show. Framing the writing as either black or white, when in fact it doesn't really work that way. Just because I think one tiny aspect was done poorly does not mean i don't like the show or I am too stupid for this show or that I love reality TV.

If future threads on this show are going to share this same elitism over aaron sorkin and how "smart" his tv shows are, count me out. I don't care to bubble over how great he is or how terrible tv shows are in general.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

devdogaz said:


> Another strong Christian here who had no problem with the show or how Christians were portrayed. Although we haven't seen the sketch "Crazy Christians," I can almost guarantee it will be some sort of parody of extreme right-wing, intolerant pseudo-Christians rather than making fun of the normal people of faith. IMO, it's these right-wing wackos that give religion a bad name and I'd have no problem if the show takes a few jabs at them. I don't see it as taking a jab at Christianity as a whole, just those who take it a little too far.
> 
> There will probably also be some kind of rip on the Parent's Television Council (or a similar group) as well, which wouldn't bother me in the least.


I think the problem is that the folks offended by criticisms of a whacko/bigot like Pat Robertson consider themselves, and only those of their ilk, as "true Christians".


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

FWIW, Wikipedia attributes Kristin Chenoweth (who Harriet is based on) as a 'liberal Christian' that later said 'The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world are scary.' after her own 700 Club appearance.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

so who's who again?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> I think the problem is that the folks offended by criticisms of a whacko/bigot like Pat Robertson consider themselves, and only those of their ilk, as "true Christians".


Which is why I called them "pseudo-Christians."


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

devdogaz said:


> Which is why I called them "pseudo-Christians."


As opposed to people who share your beliefs---the *true* Christians?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> As opposed to people who share your beliefs---the *true* Christians?


 I said they are "psuedo-Christians" because they are intolerant of other Christian faiths. I don't believe that a "true" Christian should be intolerant of anyone, whether they're one form of Christian or another, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or have any other belief (or none).


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Damn, this was a pretty good show.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

footballdude said:


> Let's see. They called Pat Robertson a bigot. The supposed Christian in this show said that the people who watch the 700 club have nothing in life but their faith, which paints a picture of poor stupid fools desperately clinging to a con man.


That is no more an attack on Christianity than calling Osama Bin Laden a bigot and his followers stupid misguided fools would be.

If you want to follow Jesus, mazel tov! More power to you. On the other hand, if you want to follow Pat Robertson then I'd suggest you aquire a taste for mockery.

It's a bit disingenuous to complain of ridicule when one's behavior is actually ridiculous.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

Forgetting about thread bickering about religious right-wing satirization -- the second ep was a killer! As West Wing did for the White House, we seem to get a realistic behind-the-scenes view of what it's like doing a big network live show. Plot lines and characterizations still need time to grow, but I love the _detail _(especially in HD)!

:up: :up: :up:


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Supfreak26 said:


> I think the bigger question is why are so many people in this thread so freaked out that a few of us thought the introduction of Peet and Weber was a bit confusing?


I can't speak for the 'so many people' here, just for myself, but I too am surprised that this was confusing to people.

As many have said, the hierarchy was established in the way things played out.

Nobody expects David Bellasario to explain the difference between an Admiral and a midshipmen and all the other ranks. His characters on JAG just go about their business, and it is clear from the context who outranks whom. If you don't already know the military stuff, you pick it up on the fly.

I don't understand why Sorkin should be held to a different standard.

Jan


----------



## footballdude (Apr 16, 2004)

busyba said:


> That is no more an attack on Christianity than calling Osama Bin Laden a bigot and his followers stupid misguided fools would be.
> 
> If you want to follow Jesus, mazel tov! More power to you. On the other hand, if you want to follow Pat Robertson then I'd suggest you aquire a taste for mockery.
> 
> It's a bit disingenuous to complain of ridicule when one's behavior is actually ridiculous.


Didn't take long. Osama Bin Laden = Pat Robertson. This show was made for people like you.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Here's a dumb question. At the very beginning of the show, when DL Hughly is warming up the audience, he asks how many people have been watching the show since it started in 1996. Then he says they are in their 20th year. Which is right?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

They had "20 year anniversary" logos everywhere. He either misspoke or you misheard. It's definitely 20.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> Here's a dumb question. At the very beginning of the show, when DL Hughly is warming up the audience, he asks how many people have been watching the show since it started in 1996. Then he says they are in their 20th year. Which is right?


I heard him say 1986.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

footballdude said:


> Didn't take long. Osama Bin Laden = Pat Robertson. This show was made for people like you.


Wow. Here, kids, is a good example how some people hear what they want to hear.

Read his post again. Nowhere did he say Laden = Robertson.

Put your guard down for 2 seconds and listen for a change.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

footballdude said:


> Didn't take long. Osama Bin Laden = Pat Robertson. This show was made for people like you.


He's simply stating that Pat Robertson doesn't represent all Christians any more than OBL represents all Muslims. They are both on the extreme fringe of their religions. Nobody is equating the conduct of the two, but merely their position in relation to the mainstream masses of their faiths.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

footballdude said:


> Didn't take long. Osama Bin Laden = Pat Robertson. This show was made for people like you.


Given the remarkable lack of reading comprehension displayed here, it's a fairly safe bet that this show certainly wasn't made for you.

BTW, since you're not likely to figure it out on your own, here's the correct notation for what I was saying (take special note of the total absence of equal signs):


```
Pat Robertson : Mainstream Christianity :: Osama Bin Laden : Mainstream Islam
```


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

busyba said:


> Given the remarkable lack of reading comprehension displayed here, it's a fairly safe bet that this show certainly wasn't made for you.


quoted for troof.


----------

