# Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip "The Cold Open" OAD: 9-25-2006 *spoilers*



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

I think I have a case of serious man love for Aaron Sorkin, or at least for his writing.

This show is *great*. Period. End of Sentence.


Oh, nod to seeing Charlotte's (Sex and the City) lawyer hubby as part of the Ricky and Ron pair. (Last seen in some cheap sitcom over on ABC).


----------



## TSuellentrop (Jan 16, 2006)

I want to see Crazy Christians


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

That musical sequence was brilliant and will be put on my iPod. Sarah Paulson is definitely moving up my crush list.


----------



## ThreeSoFar'sBro (Oct 10, 2004)

Definitely a "must-watch" series here. Very well cast, well written....simply well thought out from top to bottom, beginning to end.

The clock at the very end made me laugh out loud. How cool is that?


----------



## sschwart (Apr 4, 2001)

:up: :up: :up:

Great episode. I still would like to see Crazy Christians, but I don't think we ever will.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Tonight:

Danny: This isn't TV Camp. It isn't important to us that everybody gets to play.

West Wing, 2x12 "The Drop In"

Toby: This isn't government camp. Its not important that everyone gets to play.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Yeah, that's Sorkin for you - not afraid to plagiarize himself.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Maybe Danny Tripp is just a big Toby Zieglar fan.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

So far the show smacks a bit too much of self-importance (but then, Sorkin never said it wasn't autobiographical). But it's also snappy, funny, densely-written, and has Amanda Peet, and it's one of my new favorites.

Matthew Perry probably is never going to have a movie career of consequence, but the man is a genuine TV star.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

serumgard said:


> That musical sequence was brilliant and will be put on my iPod. Sarah Paulson is definitely moving up my crush list.


Unfortunately, she's not much of a singer. I'll let that slide though ...


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

ThreeSoFar'sBro said:


> The clock at the very end made me laugh out loud. How cool is that?


"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."

Even the clock has good material. 

I love this show - witty, intelligent, and demanding. It actually demands that I pay attention, and I can't say that about a lot of other shows. Well, most other shows.

Studio 60 is definitely filling the void left by West Wing's departure.

P.S. I loved Jordan's challenge to Jack: As President I won't let anyone tell me what to put on my air, not even the amateurs. <Joy> _Oh, snap!_ </Joy>


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

TSuellentrop said:


> I want to see Crazy Christians


Me too, but if this show lasts a decade I don't think we'll *ever* see Crazy Christians.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

drew2k said:


> Me too, but if this show lasts a decade I don't think we'll *ever* see Crazy Christians.


I don't know what you guys are talking about. I live in Tennessee, I see crazy christians every day.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Shaunnick said:


> I don't know what you guys are talking about. I live in Tennessee, I see crazy christians every day.


Thunder mostly stolen, but hey, just tune in the 700 club and you'll get your fill of them just about daily


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Definitely a much better episode for me than last week. Last week was rather dark, both in terms of lighting (the fact that it occurred all during the middle of the night didn't help) and in terms of style.

This episode, starting with the press conference scene which occurred during the day, and had quite a bit of Sorkin trademark humor, started out the episode on a much lighter note... and the fact that we got a full sketch in at the end was a pleasant surprise. Hopefully we'll continue to see sketches from the show-within-a-show as the series goes along.

Another improvement was that it seemed that already both Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford have had time to really settle into their new characters. Particularly with Bradley -- last week he just seemed like his West Wing character, but this week, he definitely had a different vibe that fit with his new character much better.

I am VERY pleasantly surprised by Sarah Paulson's character, and the way that they're treating her as a real character, and not a caricature. And I like the way that they're dealing with their equivalent to the PTC... it's, unfortunately, a very realistic depiction of how organizations like that function. If there's one thing I fear, it's that either of those topics get overdone. I don't think we need a full season or a full show dealing with Harriet's faith or those wacky religious right people protesting the show.


----------



## sonnik (Jul 7, 2000)

Still a strong showing. Coupling this with Heroes on Monday works for me.

Now, I'd really be impressed if they can work an episode of Studio 60 where they finally explain what happened to Moira Kelly's character from the West Wing.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I am VERY pleasantly surprised by Sarah Paulson's character, and the way that they're treating her as a real character, and not a caricature. And I like the way that they're dealing with their equivalent to the PTC... it's, unfortunately, a very realistic depiction of how organizations like that function. If there's one thing I fear, it's that either of those topics get overdone. I don't think we need a full season or a full show dealing with Harriet's faith or those wacky religious right people protesting the show.


Agreed. Wholeheartedly. It is my fondest wish (at least with regard to this show) that Harriet's faith and the religious extremists take a back seat. Especially Harriet. I just want her to be... there.

Otherwise, solid second show. The opening press conference was funny, and the musical sequence ending was brilliant. Anyone got a transcript of it yet? Or a downloadable version?


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Moira Kelly = A+

What else can I say that already hasn't been said about this show? It's amazing with some incredible writing. Shower it with Emmy's....quick!

Love it.


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

SnakeEyes said:


> Tonight:
> 
> Danny: This isn't TV Camp. It isn't important to us that everybody gets to play.
> 
> ...


Agreed, my one problem with this show (and it's a small one) is that it just reeks too much like the West Wing (and to a certain extent Sports Night). From the opening title of the episode at the beginning on black to the press conference that made me think 'Is C.J. giving her press conference?' to the same camera movements as the West Wing it just feels too routine. Like they took the West Wing shell and put in a new show. I know it's Thomas Schlamme's style. I love his style, don't get me wrong, but again try something new. Differentiate yourself from The West Wing more.

I gotta say though Bradley Whiteford and Matthew Perry play off of each other brilliantly. Really bring Sorkin's great dialogue to life.

I was really hoping for Albie to be a little more harsh with the writing staff although the dress code was very funny. He sure has it bad for Harriet (can't blame him). Knowing Sorkin he'll play that relationship so delicately it'll kill us for the entire season.


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

drew2k said:


> P.S. I loved Jordan's challenge to Jack: As President I won't let anyone tell me what to put on my air, not even the amateurs. <Joy> _Oh, snap!_ </Joy>


That scene reminded me of the Sports Night episode where William H. Macy's character tells the network suites to stuff it. Good television isn't made through worrying about advertisers and affiliates. Although it is the reason why good television isn't made.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Yeah, that's Sorkin for you - not afraid to plagiarize himself.


...or the classics. The bit about "you asked for the laugh, before you just asked for the butter" is a very very old story. I remember being told that by my drama teacher back in high school.

BTW, is it my imagination or did Bradley Whitford's hair get several shades lighter between friday and monday?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

TSuellentrop said:


> I want to see Crazy Christians


Did you catch the skit titles on the index cards on the show board? I want to see 'Matador Bank Teller'.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I hope Sorkin's got some more good skits up his sleeve. Otherwise, this will be a show where they'll talk about how brilliant the sketches are, but only after the fact -- because if Sorkin actually wrote some, they'd be only marginally better than what SNL puts on now.

I wonder how long he's been saving up the Pirates of Penzance idea -- 20, 30 years? After that, he's got nuthin'.

We'll never see "Crazy Christians," because the _real_ NBC that's airing this show probably doesn't want to lose _real_ affiliates.

While Matthew Perry and Sarah Paulson are doing excellent jobs here, Bradley Whitford is still playing Josh -- the Josh we'd see if the West Wing hadn't ended the way it did (don't want to spoil it) -- and Amanda Peet's president is still too calm, forthright, and dedicated to quality TV regardless of financial considerations, to be anything other than a complete fantasy.


----------



## FuzzyDolly (Dec 29, 2002)

I LOVE this show. It's my new favorite thing on TV. As much as I enjoy seeing Josh work somewhere outside of the White House, I'd be interested to see if Bradley Whitford has the ability to play another character. I'm NOT complaining, mind you, just curious. I forgot how much I enjoy Sorkin.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I guess I'm in the minority... I felt this episode was much weaker than last week's. I felt that a good portion of the studio 60 behind-the-scenes were just off in tone. This show emits an air of seriousness and many of those scenes were farcical or sitcom material. Like when all the writers describe george w bush cold opens. 

The opening song was ok, but between that and the aforementioned scene, I feel that Sorkin does not at all respect SNL. It's almost got a smarmy holier-than-thou tone to the way it presents the writing and skits. Did Sorkin ever even work on SNL? It's almost like he has a long-standing dislike of it.

I guess it only took me two episodes to remember the sports night-icisms of having music play just before commercial breaks and that sort of wacky energy before the show within the show starts. I don't mind those things but I wonder whether Sorkin is stuck in the past a bit with those. I would prefer to be judging Studio 60 on its own merits instead of having confused interpretations because sorkin re-uses stylizations from Sports Night. Fortunately I haven't seen much west wing or I might find this even more disturbing.

All that said, I still enjoy this show, but I'm a little more pessimistic about my long-term enjoyment of it and how they will be treating the Studio 60 show itself. Right now DL Hughley and Matthew Perry are charismatic enough for me to keep watching for a while. I hope the writing can keep up with the characters...


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

I enjoyed the episode - funny, well written, well acted, etc, etc.

I had one quibble, though - the sketch at the end wasn't all that funny. Yes, the "We hope that you don't mind that our producer was caught doing blow" line was funny, but the rest of it was not. Yet everyone (the studio audience, the actors, etc) act like it was the most revolutionary thing ever.

If everyone is going to say something is hilarious or revolutionary, and then they show it, it better be hilarious or revolutionary. I know I was taken out of the moment by seeing a "ho hum" song and dance number portrayed as being a knock-your-socks-off hit.

Other than that, great show. Sorkin knows how to write dialogue better than anyone. I'm just not sure he knows how to write a great comedy sketch.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

After several replays, I still couldn't make out all the words to the song, and I can't seem to figure out how to turn my closed captioning on. Anyone have the words anywhere?


----------



## jwjody (Dec 7, 2002)

I'm loving this show. I've missed seeing a Sorkin production on TV.

And Sorkin does like to reuse people and lines.


Graymalkin said:


> I wonder how long he's been saving up the Pirates of Penzance idea -- 20, 30 years? After that, he's got nuthin'.


Sorkin has mentioned G&S musicals in West Wing. Can't remember the exact line but Rob Lowe says something about them being about duty and someone replies, "They're all about duty." And Lowe's character was the head of the G&S something or another club in college.



bdowell said:


> Oh, nod to seeing Charlotte's (Sex and the City) lawyer hubby as part of the Ricky and Ron pair. (Last seen in some cheap sitcom over on ABC).


He was also in a couple of ep's of West Wing. He was on Ron Silver's staff to get Bartlett reelected after Bartlett admitted he had MS.

J


----------



## tlynch5 (Nov 23, 2002)

As a person who never watched Sports Night or The West Wing (that's right), I must say this show is brilliant.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Was that bald guy for real, or just Hurley's friend?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I guess I'm in the minority... I felt this episode was much weaker than last week's. I felt that a good portion of the studio 60 behind-the-scenes were just off in tone. This show emits an air of seriousness and many of those scenes were farcical or sitcom material. Like when all the writers describe george w bush cold opens.


I, on the other hand, thought those backstage scenes were some of the best parts of the show. Remember, these guys have walked into an AWFUL situation. The show has faded badly. It had BECOME a joke, instead of offering jokes. All of the writers suggesting GWB cold opens was classic - they don't have anything new to offer. They just offer another hackneyed take on the same joke they've been doing for the last six years or more. It's the lazy writing that the "Ricky and Ron" duo have left the show with. And with the exception of "The Big 3", there didn't seem to be any collaboration going on in the process - just individual writers shouting out tired ideas that they've probably been trying to get onscreen for years.

So the response - from Matt IIRC - about when did the show devolve into junior high. And when the grand idea for the cold open that they go with comes up, it's a fully collaborative process. Writers and actors working together. People pitching pieces until they built a coherent whole. What made it a great cold open for their first show was a combination of the content and the audacious scale of the whole thing. They brought in a full professional orchestra AND a pro-level chorus to back them. It was pure farce with a nod to classic comedy, which allowed them to reboot the franchise in one three minute sketch. Brilliant.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> Was that bald guy for real, or just Hurley's friend?


The other characters were interacting with him, so I assumed he was real...


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> They brought in a full professional orchestra AND a pro-level chorus to back them. It was pure farce with a nod to classic comedy, which allowed them to reboot the franchise in one three minute sketch. Brilliant.


I agree with everything you say, except that it wasn't funny. The IDEA was funny, but the execution wasn't that funny.

Besides, this joke was essentially already done on SNL several years back with Steve Martin. Remember the "Not Going to Phone it In Tonight" opening song and dance number? Here's a link to the transcript (And that wasn't all that funny, either...)


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

can we suspend belief long enough to say that an open like they did had never been done before in the history of television? Remember we are watching a drama here. Who cares if we the real television audience didn't find the sketch funny? The issue here is, did Studio 60's audience watching at home at 11:30 friday night find it funny?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> I, on the other hand, thought those backstage scenes were some of the best parts of the show. Remember, these guys have walked into an AWFUL situation. The show has faded badly. It had BECOME a joke, instead of offering jokes. All of the writers suggesting GWB cold opens was classic - they don't have anything new to offer. They just offer another hackneyed take on the same joke they've been doing for the last six years or more. It's the lazy writing that the "Ricky and Ron" duo have left the show with. And with the exception of "The Big 3", there didn't seem to be any collaboration going on in the process - just individual writers shouting out tired ideas that they've probably been trying to get onscreen for years.


I don't have a problem with the IDEA of that writer's meeting. I just felt that it could have been done with a little less farce. More accurate would be one, maybe two people suggesting GWB and then others suggesting equally played-out skits. It was either lazy writing, or, more probably, just flat-out mockery of SNL. Either way, it didn't work for me. It would be like having chevy chase play gerald ford on the west wing.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> can we suspend belief long enough to say that an open like they did had never been done before in the history of television?


Not sure how we could do that since they repeatedly mentioned SNL as being something that actually exists in the "Studio 60" universe.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

I believe there was a Friday night "Saturday Nite Live" type of show on in the 80's that didn't last long. If I remember correctly Matthew Perry's dad was in the cast. Anybody remember this?


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> can we suspend belief long enough to say that an open like they did had never been done before in the history of television? Remember we are watching a drama here. Who cares if we the real television audience didn't find the sketch funny? The issue here is, did Studio 60's audience watching at home at 11:30 friday night find it funny?


I know - I'm usually not one to go nuts over details like this. And the "SNL has done it before" angle is especially minor.

But when there's all this buildup to a sketch, we're shown the sketch, it's not that funny, and the audience goes nuts, I "lose the moment" so to speak. And we essentially watched the final sketch just like the home audience would have, so our reaction should be a good gauge for the "fictional" home audience. I actually thought for a moment that they weren't going to get a good reaction, so the huge ovation at the end was especially jarring...

This certainly isn't an issue big enough to dislike the show, mind you. This is still the best new show on television, and I'll continue to look forward to Monday nights. And this also shows how high the bar has been set for this show - we're talking and talking about relatively minor flaws in an otherwise excellent show (I give the first 55 minutes an A+, and the last 5 minutes a C, so that's an A grade in any book...)

Maybe Sorkin needs to hire a single sketch writer to come up with good sketch ideas for his show within a show?


----------



## Cboath (Jun 22, 2004)

AJRitz said:


> I, on the other hand, thought those backstage scenes were some of the best parts of the show. Remember, these guys have walked into an AWFUL situation. The show has faded badly. It had BECOME a joke, instead of offering jokes. All of the writers suggesting GWB cold opens was classic - they don't have anything new to offer. They just offer another hackneyed take on the same joke they've been doing for the last six years or more. It's the lazy writing that the "Ricky and Ron" duo have left the show with. And with the exception of "The Big 3", there didn't seem to be any collaboration going on in the process - just individual writers shouting out tired ideas that they've probably been trying to get onscreen for years.
> 
> So the response - from Matt IIRC - about when did the show devolve into junior high. And when the grand idea for the cold open that they go with comes up, it's a fully collaborative process. Writers and actors working together. People pitching pieces until they built a coherent whole. What made it a great cold open for their first show was a combination of the content and the audacious scale of the whole thing. They brought in a full professional orchestra AND a pro-level chorus to back them. It was pure farce with a nod to classic comedy, which allowed them to reboot the franchise in one three minute sketch. Brilliant.


I totally agree. The entire show is great. I loved the song. "Intellectual reach-around" had me rollin. I am only on the 4th season of WW which was Sorkin's last year with the show. Bradley Whitford is pretty much the same character, but I really like the character so it's all good. The brunette is a whole lot of WOW. I wonder if Wes is going to come back for anything. A rival or something. I like Judd Hirsch.

I can't think of anything about this show that I don't like. :up: :up: :up:


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

wendiness1 said:


> I believe there was a Friday night "Saturday Nite Live" type of show on in the 80's that didn't last long. If I remember correctly Matthew Perry's dad was in the cast. Anybody remember this?


Fridays!
Funny Stuff. Michael Richards (Kramer on Sienfeld was on this as well)
If that's the show you mean John Bennet Perry wasn't on it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I really liked the show. It was a great follow up to a great pilot, and it's done a good job of introducing all the main characters without a lot of stupid exposition. 

As for the opening sketch, it wasn't laugh-out-loud funny, but I don't think it was meant to be. It was simply a way to differentiate the new regime from the old, to show that while they take their jobs very seriously, they don't take themselves too seriously, and to show that nothing is off limits, including their own screw ups. 

I really wanted to see Crazy Christians also, but I'm not surprised we didn't, and by next week it will have already aired (in the show's universe) and will be old news. Like others, I hope that the religious themes take a backseat to the overall running of the show.

I liked the emergence of Jordan McDeere's moxie. It was kind of nice to see her take a stance and stand up to the network suits. Jack Rudolph continues to remind her who's boss and tell her she's on a short leash, but I think the more she stands up to him and makes winning decisions, the more she'll begin to garner increasing power.


----------



## Pab Sungenis (Apr 13, 2002)

sonnik said:


> Still a strong showing. Coupling this with Heroes on Monday works for me.
> 
> Now, I'd really be impressed if they can work an episode of Studio 60 where they finally explain what happened to Moira Kelly's character from the West Wing.


Something tells me that Tom Jeter is going to be travelling to Mandyville between seasons. Unless they really make him more interesting.

But that's one great thing about this basically being behind the scenes of Saturday Night Live; if one character isn't working out, he/she can just leave the show before the next season and a throwaway line will explain the departure.


----------



## stark (Dec 31, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Hopefully we'll continue to see sketches from the show-within-a-show as the series goes along.


It wouldn't surprise me. Sorkin wrote some speeches for Barlett on WW (something they seemed to avoid after Sorkin left).


----------



## Pab Sungenis (Apr 13, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> can we suspend belief long enough to say that an open like they did had never been done before in the history of television? Remember we are watching a drama here. Who cares if we the real television audience didn't find the sketch funny? The issue here is, did Studio 60's audience watching at home at 11:30 friday night find it funny?


Okay, let's please qualify something here.

There are different types and different degrees of funny (or, since we're talking Sorkin here, "the funny").

There's slapstick, lowbrow, puns, visual, high-concept, wit, scatology, shock, juxtaposition, misdirection, and those are just the forms of comedy I came up with in ten seconds off the top of my head. There are lots more.

Christopher Buckley and Howard Stern are completely different people with completely different styles. Both of them are (or, at least) can be funny. But they don't appeal to the same audience all the time.

"Very Model" belongs to the high concept school, much like Monty Python's "The Fish Slapping Dance" or the Kids In the Hall's "Dr. Suess' Bible." While there are some chuckle inducing lines (like "producer doing blow" and "intellectual reacharound") what makes the sketch funny is the audacity of it all: the scale, the use of a classic musical number to refer to their situation, and the ridiculousness of it all.

It also takes a swipe at Wes Mandell, believe it or not. He's complaining about how television has gone completely lowbrow and pandering to the lowest common denominator. So, how do his successors start their first show? GILBERT AND SULLIVAN, about as highbrow as comedy ever got.

You were not meant to be laughing out loud at the number, you were meant to be be amused.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mrpantstm said:


> Agreed, my one problem with this show (and it's a small one) is that it just reeks too much like the West Wing (and to a certain extent Sports Night). From the opening title of the episode at the beginning on black to the press conference that made me think 'Is C.J. giving her press conference?' to the same camera movements as the West Wing it just feels too routine. Like they took the West Wing shell and put in a new show. I know it's Thomas Schlamme's style. I love his style, don't get me wrong, but again try something new. Differentiate yourself from The West Wing more.


I totally flashed back to WW when Danny was watching Jordan do her press conference. It was just like Josh watching Toby do the briefing for the first time and critiquing him backstage.


----------



## ScottE22 (Sep 19, 2003)

I'm glad to see this show has drawn such positive feedback! I love it, but it seems all the shows I love end up getting cancelled sooner rather than later.... 

Matthew Perry - I never realized how versatile he was as an actor. In the Pilot, I saw Chandler Bing every time he was on screen, but he has very quickly overcome that.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

FourFourSeven said:


> But when there's all this buildup to a sketch, we're shown the sketch, it's not that funny, and the audience goes nuts, I "lose the moment" so to speak. And we essentially watched the final sketch just like the home audience would have, so our reaction should be a good gauge for the "fictional" home audience. I actually thought for a moment that they weren't going to get a good reaction, so the huge ovation at the end was especially jarring...


Well, as you notice, the audience didn't laugh too much - they snickered at some parts, but no real out loud "recorded in front of a live studio audience" rolls of laughter. There was a huge standing ovation at the end, but that wasn't because it was funny - it was more an expression of "yay, our show is back!" It wasn't intended as a laugh-out-loud sketch.

Ricky and Ron did the "laugh-out-loud" style sketches... they did them until they weren't funny anymore. This was designed from the ground up to be the anti-Ricky/Ron open... subtle and just enough humor to make you smile throughout.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Pab Sungenis said:


> Okay, let's please qualify something here.
> 
> There are different types and different degrees of funny (or, since we're talking Sorkin here, "the funny").
> 
> ...


Can't say it any better than this, so all I'll say is...
+1


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Pab Sungenis said:


> Okay, let's please qualify something here.
> 
> There are different types and different degrees of funny (or, since we're talking Sorkin here, "the funny").
> 
> ...


You and I do not disagree at all. I guess I'm lashing out at the idea that if the sketches we see within the show don't get funnier, then the show will lose ratings and get cancelled.
I don't think Sorkin needs to hire a sketch writer.


----------



## mattpol (Jul 23, 2003)

I really like DL Hughley's character.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

FourFourSeven said:


> I know - I'm usually not one to go nuts over details like this. And the "SNL has done it before" angle is especially minor.
> 
> But when there's all this buildup to a sketch, we're shown the sketch, it's not that funny, and the audience goes nuts, I "lose the moment" so to speak. And we essentially watched the final sketch just like the home audience would have, so our reaction should be a good gauge for the "fictional" home audience.


I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree.

Yes, a comedian could watch the show-within-a-show and say that the sketch failed at point A or B because of bad technique. But a sketch which would be funny to the home audience of Studio 60 which has been watching the show for 20 seasons and depends on the knowledge of the last 20 seasons is not necessarily going to be funny to us.

Here's an example. The gag about the chorus elaborating on the lyrics and Harry complaining that 'they didn't say what we said' is not part of the G&S original, as far as I know. If this is the standard gag of one of her characters (along the lines of Emily Littella's trademark "never mind") then it could be very funny to the audience which is familiar with the show, but not funny to us.

If you watch any comedy show, the first couple of episodes you watch are not going to be as funny to you as they are later on, after you know what the running gags are (and that they are running gags).

+1 on D L Hughley. :up: :up:

Really looking forward to his performances on the show.

Jan


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

mattpol said:


> I really like DL Hughley's character.


heh me too. Jello Pudding pops. He can't do the voices


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree.
> 
> Yes, a comedian could watch the show-within-a-show and say that the sketch failed at point A or B because of bad technique. But a sketch which would be funny to the home audience of Studio 60 which has been watching the show for 20 seasons and depends on the knowledge of the last 20 seasons is not necessarily going to be funny to us.
> 
> ...


+1 Insightful.

Totally agree here as well. This show (and our view of the open) was not a breaking of the 4th wall. Frankly I probably wouldn't have shown the sketch at all. Just hear the audio and flash to Matt and Danny and their reaction to what they are seeing and hearing seeing the obviously quite please looks on their faces.


----------



## Pab Sungenis (Apr 13, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Yes, a comedian could watch the show-within-a-show and say that the sketch failed at point A or B because of bad technique.


And I keep finding myself doing that. You can't write comedy and then watch comedy passively, sorry to say.



> Here's an example. The gag about the chorus elaborating on the lyrics and Harry complaining that 'they didn't say what we said' is not part of the G&S original, as far as I know.


It isn't. The original song itself isn't funny, except for how it sets up the character of the major general: how he knows everything about science, philosophy, and other subjects, but nothing about war. The last stanza starts with "my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury, has only been brought down to the beginning of the (18th) century, but still...."



> If this is the standard gag of one of her characters (along the lines of Emily Littella's trademark "never mind") then it could be very funny to the audience which is familiar with the show, but not funny to us.


Good point. It doesn't look to me like Matt and Danny are very big on catchphrase comedy, though. The joke might have been playing on how people read too much into what the actors say, perhaps.



> If you watch any comedy show, the first couple of episodes you watch are not going to be as funny to you as they are later on, after you know what the running gags are (and that they are running gags).


Running gags do not good comedy make. If anything, they're a cheap way out. I tend to think that with SNL, for example, the best bits are the one-shots with no recurring characters in them. A lot of things are funny...once. SNL's problem is that it doesn't know when to declare victory and go home after doing a concept once. ("Debbie Downer" anyone?) I could see a battle where one of the cast wants to do their recurring character one week, and Matt shoots it down because the character is played out.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Gunnyman said:


> +1 Insightful.
> 
> Totally agree here as well. This show (and our view of the open) was not a breaking of the 4th wall. Frankly I probably wouldn't have shown the sketch at all. Just hear the audio and flash to Matt and Danny and their reaction to what they are seeing and hearing seeing the obviously quite please looks on their faces.


They needed to show the sketch. I would have been very dissappointed if they built up everything behind the scenes as an amazing opening sketch and then we didn't get to see it. I'd totally be thinking that the writers of this show copped out by not coming up with something good, just pretending like they did.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Another great show. I'm not used to Sorkin shows. I can see I'm going to have to listen more closely to catch all the words and lines. Don't watch directly before or after The Wire 

Earlier in the day I had read that NBC caved to Jerry Falwell's group to censor Madonna's crucification number when they broadcast her concert in a few months. (a concert that survived protests in Italy and Russia) That made the entire Crazy Christians interesting. I wish the NBS President ran the "real" NBC!


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

DancnDude said:


> They needed to show the sketch. I would have been very dissappointed if they built up everything behind the scenes an amazing opening sketch and then we didn't get to see it. I'd totally be thinking that the writers of this show copped out by not coming up with something good, just pretending like they did.


Nah, I agree with the previous. I don't think we needed to see the sketch. It's not about the show-within-a-show.

We can see snipets from sketches here and there but that's it.

Like Larry Sanders (the Garden Weasel!) did.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

cwoody222 said:


> Nah, I agree with the previous. I don't think we needed to see the sketch. It's not about the show-within-a-show.
> 
> We can see snipets from sketches here and there but that's it.
> 
> Like Larry Sanders (the Garden Weasel!) did.


Guess I'm somewhere in-between. I don't mind if they show full sketches as long as they are funny/entertaining/interesting. None of which were true of the cold open for me. When they show the full sketch as they did here, I think it places a certain emphasis on the sketch as if we were supposed to form an opinion. The opinion I formed was... what a letdown! If I were a studio 60 fan in the studio 60 universe I would think to myself, "all that build-up and this is all we got? *click*". Maybe that was supposed to be the opinion, but the audience riotously cheering led me to believe otherwise.

That's why I think the writing is off... I think that they are making sketch shows look a lot easier and dumber than they are when at their best.


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree.
> 
> Yes, a comedian could watch the show-within-a-show and say that the sketch failed at point A or B because of bad technique. But a sketch which would be funny to the home audience of Studio 60 which has been watching the show for 20 seasons and depends on the knowledge of the last 20 seasons is not necessarily going to be funny to us.
> 
> ...


Great points - I remember watching the first two episodes of Arrested Development, and thinking "meh", but re-watching them and realizing they were brilliant.

I agree the audience could have found some aspects funnier than we did due to 20 years experience with the show, so I concede that point. Still, enough funnier to go from the chuckle or two I got to a standing ovation? That seemed like overkill.

AND I agree on DL Hughley - he's terrific.



Pab Sungenis said:


> So, how do his successors start their first show? GILBERT AND SULLIVAN, about as highbrow as comedy ever got.
> 
> You were not meant to be laughing out loud at the number, you were meant to be be amused.


I agree - so why did the studio audience go nuts? Speaking personally, I love that sort of humor, and the idea seemed great - it just seemed to fall a bit flat on the show, and yet still be considered "brilliant" by the audience.

Also, I was always under the impression that Gilbert and Sullivan were considered rather lowbrow and crude in their day (I love 'em, by the way).


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> +1 Insightful.
> 
> Totally agree here as well. This show (and our view of the open) was not a breaking of the 4th wall. Frankly I probably wouldn't have shown the sketch at all. Just hear the audio and flash to Matt and Danny and their reaction to what they are seeing and hearing seeing the obviously quite please looks on their faces.


I don't know -- having promised us John Mauceri and orchestra and chorus, I think they sorta have to show us a big ensemble.  It would have been a let-down otherwise.

P.S. to my earlier -- if the gag about "the chorus didn't say what we said" is elsewhere in G&S (it probably is, somewhere) -- AND it is also a tagline of one of Harry's characters, that would be doubly funny any people in Studio 60's home audience who were also G&S fans.

P.P.S. I imagine the G&S pastiche was funnier to those of us who remember the G&S scene from The West Wing. As soon as Timothy Busfield's character said "we'll be model citizens" and Matthew Perry's character said "Model" a couple of times, I thought _Here comes the G&S sketch_. I started laughing when they said they wanted John Mauceri because I know enough about music to know that's exactly who you would call for something like that. Not because he's a G&S specialist, more along the lines of "It's a musical, call John Mauceri, he can conduct anything." The people who aren't familiar with Mauceri's career are not going to laugh at that.










Jan


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

Gunnyman said:


> Fridays!
> Funny Stuff. Michael Richards (Kramer on Sienfeld was on this as well)
> If that's the show you mean John Bennet Perry wasn't on it.


Yes! That's it. I thought he was on it but you're probably right.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

This show might as well be called _Sports Night 60 on the West Wing Strip_.

Yes, it's extremely reminiscent of _Sports Night_ and _The West Wing_. Yes, Sorkin does tend to plagiarize himself, and yes, the characters do sound just like Casey and Dan and Josh and Toby. But yes, it's still pretty good TV. Sorkin does have a way with dialogue and he knows how to find actors who can deliver a line.

I thought this episode was better than Pilot and even though I still think Amanda Peet is the weak link, I thought she did a much better job this week and Jordan was more believable as the network president. (Although I think she and Weber should be recurring characters, because I don't really buy that they would be so involved with the day-to-day running of a single show when they have a network to run. If one show takes up all of their time, then Matt and Danny aren't doing their jobs.)

Sorkin also needs to find some other group to bash than the "Crazy Christians" every week or this is going to get old. He likes his soapbox, but there are other targets out there. I can't wait to see how things develop between Matt and Danny and Ricky and Ron (and I loved seeing Evan Handler again, another member of the Sorkin repertory company).


----------



## Pab Sungenis (Apr 13, 2002)

FourFourSeven said:


> Also, I was always under the impression that Gilbert and Sullivan were considered rather lowbrow and crude in their day (I love 'em, by the way).


For opera, yes. But if you compare it to some of the comedies from the same time period, it was very highbrow. Their genius was marrying two distinct styles (opera and farce) and making them work.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Pab Sungenis said:


> You can't write comedy and then watch comedy passively, sorry to say.


Yes, it's an occupational hazard of being a writer. I'll look forward to your comments, but I'll understand if you have to bail out. 



> It doesn't look to me like Matt and Danny are very big on catchphrase comedy, though. The joke might have been playing on how people read too much into what the actors say, perhaps.


I watched both episodes back-to-back last night, then read both threads here on TCF immediately afterwards, so I'm muddled on what was talked about where, but note the discussion on how Sorkin has been portrayed as anti-religious despite the presence of characters whose religions are very important to them (Bartlett and others). This could be Sorkin's way of pointing out that what people say he said is not what he said.



> Running gags do not good comedy make. If anything, they're a cheap way out. I tend to think that with SNL, for example, the best bits are the one-shots with no recurring characters in them. A lot of things are funny...once. SNL's problem is that it doesn't know when to declare victory and go home after doing a concept once. ("Debbie Downer" anyone?) I could see a battle where one of the cast wants to do their recurring character one week, and Matt shoots it down because the character is played out.


Totally agree with the above. IMHO, it is much harder to be funnier with a running gag than a one-shot. You have to lead the audience to the gag in a way that the gag will still be a surprise -- if the audience sees it coming, they will be thinking, 'here we go again' and it won't be funny. If you can make the running gag payoff coincide with the payoff of a second joke without the audience getting there before you, it can be funny, but it seems likely that the audience will be ahead of you and the joke will just be tiresome 99% of the time.

I haven't seen many "Debbie Downer" skits because I don't watch SNL much these days -- I have an SP to catch the opening and bail out after they say "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night". The one I remember vividly was when Lindsay Lohan hosted. Two of the guys had their (some have said tiresome) running practical joke going where they tried to crack everyone up when they were in the middle of the sketch.

The funny thing to me about that skit was where Lindsay Lohan finally gave up and ran offstage, and the poor actor doing the Debbie Downer character had to keep on doing her Debbie Downer lines when she was choking with laughter. But if I had been watching the show and seen them sabotaging sketch after sketch with this stunt, I would have agreed with the other regular watchers and it wouldn't have been funny at all, just tiresome.

We don't know yet what Sorkin is setting up. It'll be interesting to see how we look back on this later on in the season.

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> (and I loved seeing Evan Handler again, another member of the Sorkin repertory company).


Yep, if you watch Sorkin, you have to think like a theatre person, and get used to seeing the same faces over and over again.

I can sympathise with the comments about how difficult it is to see the same people and have to get used to them as different characters. The place I'm tripping over myself is Sorkin's reuse of the name "Danny". When I hear "Danny" I tend to think of Timothy Busfield. Since Tim is also in this show, it's going to take me a while to re-map everyone. 

Jan


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

cwoody222 said:


> Another great show. I'm not used to Sorkin shows. I can see I'm going to have to listen more closely to catch all the words and lines.


I usually turned on my TV's closed captioning when I was watching The West Wing. And even then, I often had to resort to the TiVo's "instant replay" button a few times to catch every line.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> Here's an example. The gag about the chorus elaborating on the lyrics and Harry complaining that 'they didn't say what we said' is not part of the G&S original, as far as I know. If this is the standard gag of one of her characters (along the lines of Emily Littella's trademark "never mind") then it could be very funny to the audience which is familiar with the show, but not funny to us.
> 
> 
> Pab Sungenis said:
> ...


I don't think it was necessarily a running gag, but merely a play on her real-life persona. We know that in real life, Harriet is a Christian and that's public knowledge. So when the choir didn't follow exactly what the players said, and instead added words that were maybe a little off color, it fit perfectly with the public's knowledge of her real life to have her feign shock and offense. It wouldn't have worked if one of the other actors did that, but because of who she is, it came across as funny.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Can I just go ahead and order season one on dvd now?
This having to wait a week between episodes kinda sucks.


----------



## gerbil42 (Aug 26, 2003)

I absolutely love this show, and I, for one, am glad that I'm getting to see an Aaron Sorkin show from the beginning this time (I was a latecomer to both Sports Night and West Wing). It's going to be quite a ride to see these characters and stories develop from the beginning.


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> The place I'm tripping over myself is Sorkin's reuse of the name "Danny". When I hear "Danny" I tend to think of Timothy Busfield. Since Tim is also in this show, it's going to take me a while to re-map everyone.


+1

At one point Timothy Busfield's character said "Danny!" I immediately thought "huh? Why is he calling his own name?"


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

From this year's SNL I learned that recurring gag skits aren't necessarily bad. They can be pulled off to an incredibly funny and creative degree. The falconer time travelling skit this year was incredibly funny, perhaps the most entertaining and hilarious skit I've seen in a long time on SNL. I also remember how funny the "mr. peepers" skit with The Rock was. Unfortunately it almost never works that way.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

FourFourSeven said:


> +1
> 
> At one point Timothy Busfield's character said "Danny!" I immediately thought "huh? Why is he calling his own name?"


let's not forget Dan from Sports Night too. Sorkin does like to reuse names. I just noticed this.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Sorkin also likes to reuse character backstories. So, who's going to be the one with abandonment issues?


----------



## Mr2sday (Jul 8, 2005)

"I made a decision, you'll find I'll be making a lot of them."

Another West Wing ripoff. Flashback to the first Bartlet election. 

Enjoyed the show. We do need to see some of the hilarious funny show once in a while and I'm glad we saw SOMETHING tonight.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

FourFourSeven said:


> At one point Timothy Busfield's character said "Danny!" I immediately thought "huh? Why is he calling his own name?"


Heh. To me, Timothy Busfield will always be "Elliott" and "Danny" will always be Dan Rydell (alongside Casey McCall). For all you people who haven't seen _Sports Night_, get thee to Netflix! (Since we're talking about how we'd like Natalie and Jeremy to show up, I'll put my vote in for Josh Charles. I think he could probably use the work.)

I was talking to a friend about S60 and she complained that Sorkin hasn't done enough to differentiate it from TWW, so it feels like a retread and that he's run out of ideas. And Bradley Whitford in the lead role exacerbates the problem. "It's like Josh has left politics and now he's working in TV, except we find out he developed a coke habit after leaving the White House."

It's hard to argue with that, because it does sort of feel that way. The title cards are exactly like they were in TWW. Why copy it so closely? And the control room stuff is straight from SN. Not that I mind, but there is a fine line between having a recognizable "style" and just copying what's been done before.

ETA:



Gunnyman said:


> let's not forget Dan from Sports Night too. Sorkin does like to reuse names. I just noticed this.


You beat me to it. 

Yes, let's please not forget Dan Rydell. ("The Apology" gets me every time. Man, I miss SN. And that episode was about Dan having to apologize to the "crazy Christians" too, now that I think about it! Geez, I am sensing a pattern here.)


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

I saved the pilot till last night so I could watch the pilot and episode 2 back to back given that pilots are usually the setup and episode 2 is where the story actually starts.

Anyways after watching both I was impressed with the writting and the acting. However there really isn't much I can see where this series will go in the long run. 

Exactly how many stories could there possibly be in a television show about making a television show? Sure they can have the inter-character relationships but I don't think there is going to be much play there either.

Writing, directing, and acting can take a show a long way but without a good continuing story arc I give Studio 60 one season.

Heck just with the Pilot and the second episode I could just turn off my season pass as with the second episode I thought had enough closure that I could never watch the show again and be okay with that.

There just wasn't anything there to make me say "I gotta watch next weeks episode to see what happens".

However there is the Hero factor. Since Studio 60 is after Heroes I will probably stick around and watch the opening teaser. If Studio 60 was first, followed by Heroes I'd just do other things and wait to watch Heroes.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I'd LOVE Josh Charles and Joshua Melina (Molina?) to show up.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

NBC is looking really strong on mondays. I haven't watched Heroes yet (recording the re-run today) but it looks promising. If they could just get scrubs and the office on the same night too, that would be the ultimate NBC resurrection.


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

Gunnyman said:


> I'd LOVE Josh Charles and Joshua Melina (Molina?) to show up.


Joshua Malina will show up to interview for the AP position...errr wrong show. 

Agreed though, I'd like to see them both again, especially Josh Charles.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I liked josh charles in four brothers as well. Good actor.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> Can I just go ahead and order season one on dvd now?
> This having to wait a week between episodes kinda sucks.


+1 :up: :up: :up:


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Domandred said:


> Exactly how many stories could there possibly be in a television show about making a television show?


How long did the _Mary Tyler Moore Show_ run? (A long time.) How long did the _Larry Sanders Show_ run? (A good while.)

_Sports Night_ was also about the making of a television show and that could have run a really long time also, if only anyone had bothered to watch it. But it wasn't canceled because they ran out of stories to tell -- far from it.

(And apparently we all agree that Josh Charles is great and should do a guest spot on S60. Since Felicity Huffman, Peter Krause and Josh Malina all went on to be in hit shows, I think Josh deserves to be on another good show also.)


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Domandred said:


> Anyways after watching both I was impressed with the writting and the acting. However there really isn't much I can see where this series will go in the long run.
> 
> Exactly how many stories could there possibly be in a television show about making a television show? Sure they can have the inter-character relationships but I don't think there is going to be much play there either.


Sorry, but this show isn't about the making of a Television show, it is entirely about the relationships between the characters, and there is plenty "there" to play on and on with.

Abandon the show early if you want, and think of it only as a behind the scenes at an SNL type show, but if you do you'll be missing the point of the show and missing the best parts.

There'll be plenty of things to pick up and discuss in the show-within-a-show, and plenty of places to take the relationships between the various players in the Studio 60 world. There'll be changes to the cast and characters for sure, and there'll be ups and downs in the personal lives and public lives of the characters that impacts others around them.

Those are the important pieces and what will be providing the entertainment in this show.


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

Magnolia88 said:


> How long did the _Mary Tyler Moore Show_ run? (A long time.) How long did the _Larry Sanders Show_ run? (A good while.)


Ack you're right, I abdicate. Seinfeld anyone? A show about nothing ran for how many years?

I just keep thinking about TV shows getting Foxed after a few episodes. Yea I know NBC isn't Fox. I laughed out loud when Amanda Peets character (sorry don't know the character names yet) slammed Fox network cause it was soooo true. Hell even the tirade during the pilot's teaser was completely true from a certain point of view.

Really the 2 shows weren't only about Studio 60, one show on the network lineup, but also about network television in general.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Having only seen a few episodes of West Wing, even I could recognize that this show follows that template. I thought the dialog was good, even though some of you have heard it already. For the sake of discussions though, I hope they can eliminate a lot of this because I would hate for every thread around here to be filled with "they did that/said that/were named that on West Wing".


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

DancnDude said:


> Having only seen a few episodes of West Wing, even I could recognize that this show follows that template. I thought the dialog was good, even though some of you have heard it already. For the sake of discussions though, I hope they can eliminate a lot of this because *I would hate for every thread around here to be filled with "they did that/said that/were named that on West Wing".*


Simpsons did it.


----------



## sschwart (Apr 4, 2001)

mrpantstm said:


> Joshua Malina will show up to interview for the AP position...errr wrong show.
> 
> Agreed though, I'd like to see them both again, especially Josh Charles.


Well, Joshua Malina is the only actor to have been in everything Aaron Sorkin has done up to Studio 60. I suspect we'll see Joshua sooner or later.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

DancnDude said:


> Having only seen a few episodes of West Wing, even I could recognize that this show follows that template. I thought the dialog was good, even though some of you have heard it already. For the sake of discussions though, I hope they can eliminate a lot of this because I would hate for every thread around here to be filled with "they did that/said that/were named that on West Wing".


Totally agree here.
I do think from what I've seen so far, NBC is letting Sorkin be Sorkin. This show is being aimed at the Sorkin Fan. The mistake will be if that's the only audience they get.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I know Sorkin can't write them all but damn these first two have been outstanding.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Don't bring in Ted McGinley!


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

For some reason I get Sarah Paulson and Monica Potter mixed up. I think its their faces I dunno.

I just realized as I was looking her up just now that she (sarah) was also briefly in Serenity in the video image on the ship on Miranda. And she was in Deadwood. Im so dense missing that. Whats wrong with me.

Back to the show... I liked it. I loved it. I want more of it. Why is it only an hour and once a week!


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

rkester said:


> For some reason I get Sarah Paulson and Monica Potter mixed up. I think its their faces I dunno.
> 
> I just realized as I was looking her up just now that she (sarah) was also briefly in Serenity in the video image on the ship on Miranda. And she was in Deadwood. Im so dense missing that. Whats wrong with me.
> 
> Back to the show... I liked it. I loved it. I want more of it. Why is it only an hour and once a week!


Smeek!

(Well, maybe. Is is really smeeking if it's across threads? What about if the threads are about the same TV show?)


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I never smeek. I say what I want when I am thinking about it. If someone else said it, so what. I just picked up on the Sarah thing and mentioned it so


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Wow, you guys really love this. It seems like many of you already know the full names of several characters. In threads for the early episodes for other shows, people are still using the actor names or descriptive terms to refer to the characters.

I like the show so far, but I felt the sketch was kind of weak. I probably wouldn't watch a sketch show where that bit was considered to be good, so it makes believing this show a little harder. The bringing network flagship back to its former hilarious glory premise kind of requires the viewer to believe the show was once hilarious.

As to whether or not they should show sketches, I think they should, assuming the plot focuses on a sketch and they are actually able to make it funny if it's supposed to be funny. If they hadn't shown the opening sketch in this episode, it would have been kind of weak, since the whole episode was building up to it.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

DLiquid said:


> Wow, you guys really love this. It seems like many of you already know the full names of several characters. In threads for the early episodes for other shows, people are still using the actor names or descriptive terms to refer to the characters.
> 
> I like the show so far, but I felt the sketch was kind of weak. I probably wouldn't watch a sketch show where that bit was considered to be good, so it makes believing this show a little harder. The bringing network flagship back to its former hilarious glory premise kind of requires the viewer to believe the show was once hilarious.
> 
> As to whether or not they should show sketches, I think they should, assuming the plot focuses on a sketch and they are actually able to make it funny if it's supposed to be funny. If they hadn't shown the opening sketch in this episode, it would have been kind of weak, since the whole episode was building up to it.


My expectation on the possibility of seeing more sketches from the show-within-the-show is that we'll start seeing more of the dress rehearsals and such, where things will go wrong, or the actors and players will stop the action, get a chance to start discussing something, flub a delivery or something similar.

Showing the sketches from the show that is airing live won't give the opportunity to stop and change directions so quickly, or to offer reactions, etc. It would be too close to "real time" and that isn't what the show is all about.


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

IMHO, the damn font is the biggest reminder of "West Wing!" 

I was a little surprised to find out that "SNL" exists in the "S60-verse." 
It would be amusing if Sorkin found a way to work in Tina Fey's new effort.

Given the transparently autobiographical nature, Wes is John Wells, and we finally get to see just how much Sorkin hated the rest of the "Wing" writers room.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

DLiquid said:


> The bringing network flagship back to its former hilarious glory premise kind of requires the viewer to believe the show was once hilarious.


THe way I see it, the show is essentially based off SNL. We all know that SNL was hilarous for many years and then started sucking wind.

I don't find it hard to beleive the show or their past of being good then sucking. Its been proven in reali life with SNL, so why is it any different here?


----------



## danieljanderson (Nov 19, 2002)

I wouls guess that we won't see sketches regularly, but we will see them. It's just another plot device to be used.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

rkester said:


> THe way I see it, the show is essentially based off SNL. We all know that SNL was hilarous for many years and then started sucking wind.
> 
> I don't find it hard to beleive the show or their past of being good then sucking. Its been proven in reali life with SNL, so why is it any different here?


I was referring to this rise of the phoenix comeback, which SNL never really had AFAIK. If the show-within-a-show doesn't seem funny now with the return of the dynamic duo, it's harder to believe it was that funny in the first place. That didn't stop me from liking last night's episode, but it would be nice if they did drop in some funny sketches here and there.

IMO, showing the sketches is a natural thing to do when the plot focuses on writing a sketch, which it did here. If an episode focuses more on the characters, I can easily see them leave out the glimpses of the show-within-a-show.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I wouldnt mind seeing a sketch form time to time, esp if its the focus of the show. But id rather over all if they kept it about the people and the sketches are just background noise to the characters.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DLiquid said:


> I was referring to this rise of the phoenix comeback, which SNL never really had AFAIK.


I would beg to differ. During the early 80's, it was widely believed that SNL would be cancelled, it was that bad... then came Phil Hartman, Dana Carvey, Mike Meyers, Victoria Jackson, Jan Hooks, et.al. - that cast was easily as good if not better than the original, and the writing was spot on during that era. Everything worked.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Magnolia88 said:


> Heh. To me, Timothy Busfield will always be "Elliott" and "Danny" will always be Dan Rydell (alongside Casey McCall). For all you people who haven't seen _Sports Night_, get thee to Netflix!


Err, "Elliott" was Greg Baker.

As far as I can see the Timothy Busfield never appeared on Sport Night; although he did direct a couple episodes.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> I would beg to differ. During the early 80's, it was widely believed that SNL would be cancelled, it was that bad... then came Phil Hartman, Dana Carvey, Mike Meyers, Victoria Jackson, Jan Hooks, et.al. - that cast was easily as good if not better than the original, and the writing was spot on during that era. Everything worked.


Yeah my SNL history is pretty weak. I just think Belushi/Ackroyd, then Eddie Murphy, then Carvey/Meyers. I'm forgetting whatever high or low points were in between.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Jonathan_S said:


> Err, "Elliott" was Greg Baker.
> 
> As far as I can see the Timothy Busfield never appeared on Sport Night; although he did direct a couple episodes.


He played Elliot in Thirtysomething.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

DLiquid said:


> He played Elliot in Thirtysomething.


Ah. Got confused, having not watched that (and what with the rest of the post being an ode to Sports Night )


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Jonathan_S said:


> Ah. Got confused, having not watched that (and what with the rest of the post being an ode to Sports Night )


Sorry to confuse you with my mixed-Elliott post. 

But yes, I meant that Timothy Busfield will always be Elliott from _thirtysomething_ to me. No matter what he else does, ever. What can I say, I still watch every show Ken Olin is involved with because, hey, it's Michael Steadman.


----------



## jwjody (Dec 7, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> Heh. To me, Timothy Busfield will always be "Elliott" and "Danny" will always be Dan Rydell (alongside Casey McCall). For all you people who haven't seen _Sports Night_, get thee to Netflix! (Since we're talking about how we'd like Natalie and Jeremy to show up, I'll put my vote in for Josh Charles. I think he could probably use the work.)
> 
> I was talking to a friend about S60 and she complained that Sorkin hasn't done enough to differentiate it from TWW, so it feels like a retread and that he's run out of ideas. And Bradley Whitford in the lead role exacerbates the problem. "It's like Josh has left politics and now he's working in TV, except we find out he developed a coke habit after leaving the White House."
> 
> ...


Could be smeeking, but this was also also a theme in the Pilot of WW. Josh insults Christians during a news show with a crazy christian woman and the Christian groups want Josh fired.


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

Another solid episode I am warming up to all the characters accept jordan. I still wish the show had more humor. The season pass will stay because I am sure the show will get better as the season goes on. I did like this episode more than the pilot so that is a good sign of the show getting better with each episode.


----------



## Pab Sungenis (Apr 13, 2002)

Who was it who wanted the lyrics to "Modern Network TV Show?"

"Modern Network TV Show"
Lyrics by Aaron Sorkin
Music by Sir Arthur Sullivan

We'll be the very model of a modern network TV show
Each time that we walk into this august and famous studio.
We're starting out from scratch after a run of twenty years, and so
We hope that you don't mind that our producer was caught doing blow.

_They hope that you don't mind that their producer was caught doing blow.
They hope that you don't mind that their producer was caught doing blow.
They hope that you don't mind that their producer was caught doing mounds of blow._

Yes, it's hard to be a player when at heart you've always had a hunch
To bite the hand that feeds you is a scary way of doing lunch.
But still when we walk into this august and famous studio
We'll be the very model of a modern network TV show.

_But still when they walk into this august and famous studio
They'll be the very model of a modern network TV show._

I am a Christian, tried and true, baptized at age 11.
So unlike the lib'rals, gays, and Jews, I'm going straight to Heaven.
But if you feel that you've been cheated and our sordid content lets you down
We'll hap'ly do the favor of an intellectual reach-around.

_They'll hap'ly do the favor of an intellectual reach-around.
They'll hap'ly do the favor of an intellectual reach-around.
They'll hap'ly do the favor of a hundred dollar hooker's reach-around._

"That wasn't the same thing we said!"

_They'll hap'ly do the favor of a verbal euphemistic reach-around._

We know the Evangelicals are lining up to tag our toe.
And then the corporations will not hesitate to pull their dough.
But still when we walk into this august and famous studio
We'll be the very model of a modern network TV show.

_But still when they walk into this august and famous studio
They'll be the very model of a modern network TV show._

But still when we walk into this august and famous studio
We'll be the very model of a modern network TV show.


----------



## sonnik (Jul 7, 2000)

busyba said:


> Did you catch the skit titles on the index cards on the show board?


I believe SNL lore calls this the "rundown board".

Speaking of, did anyone catch if they have a "Weekend Update" type device they could write in for even more topical debate?


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

sonnik said:


> I believe SNL lore calls this the "rundown board".
> 
> Speaking of, did anyone catch if they have a "Weekend Update" type device they could write in for even more topical debate?


They do, and DL Hugely's character was given the job of "anchor"


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Magnolia88 said:


> ...
> 
> I thought this episode was better than Pilot and even though I still think Amanda Peet is the weak link, I thought she did a much better job this week and Jordan was more believable as the network president. (Although I think she and Weber should be recurring characters, because I don't really buy that they would be so involved with the day-to-day running of a single show when they have a network to run. If one show takes up all of their time, then Matt and Danny aren't doing their jobs.)


I'm not sure if you're forgetting the timeline from the first two episodes:

The pilot started just before 11:30 PM Friday night and ended late Saturday morning when Danny and Matt agreed to work for Jordan, who hadn't even officially started working for NBS yet.

Episode 2 started on Monday morning with Jordan giving her first press conference as president of NBS, culminating with her introducing the new showrunners for Studio 60, ostensibly the "signature" series for NBS and in much need of damage control due to Wes' meltdown on the previous Friday night.

All of Jordan's appearances so far make sense to me, and if you noticed, I don't think Jordan and Jack appeared again until Friday night when Studio 60 was about to go live. As in real life, the actual duties of running the show were left to the Executive Producers, Matt and Danny.

So far so good ...


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Was "Crazy Christians" on the board for last night's ep (within an ep)? Anyone have a screen cap?


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

drew2k said:


> I'm not sure if you're forgetting the timeline from the first two episodes:


No, I get all of that. I wasn't complaining about Jordan's appearances so far in the first two episodes.

I just said that it seemed like Jordan and (Jack?) should be recurring characters over time. It will be odd if every episode involves direct interaction between Matt & Danny and the network head honchos. I can't imagine Jeff Zucker talks to Lorne Michaels about every SNL episode because they don't have a major controversy every week over some sketch. Or at least I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

MacThor said:


> Was "Crazy Christians" on the board for last night's ep (within an ep)?


Yes


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Magnolia88 said:


> No, I get all of that. I wasn't complaining about Jordan's appearances so far in the first two episodes.
> 
> I just said that it seemed like Jordan and (Jack?) should be recurring characters over time. It will be odd if every episode involves direct interaction between Matt & Danny and the network head honchos. I can't imagine Jeff Zucker talks to Lorne Michaels about every SNL episode because they don't have a major controversy every week over some sketch. Or at least I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.


My guess is we'll see Jack dealing mainly with Jordan, who will be a buffer protecting Matt and Danny from Jack. I'm sure M&D will do something each week to generate a scene with Jordan counseling, cajoling, commiserating, or canoodling with them.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

drew2k said:


> My guess is we'll see Jack dealing mainly with Jordan, who will be a buffer protecting Matt and Danny from Jack. I'm sure M&D will do something each week to generate a scene with Jordan counseling, cajoling, commiserating, or canoodling with them.


And I doubt it's unreasonable that Jordan and Jack could spend 42 minutes a week dealing with Studio 60 issues...and that's only if they're on screen every second of every episode!


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

bdowell said:


> I think I have a case of serious man love for Aaron Sorkin, or at least for his writing.
> 
> This show is *great*. Period. End of Sentence.


My sentiments exactly. I never really got into West Wing, but from what I have seen and combined with what happened when he left and what was Sports Night, the guy is simply a genius writer.

I guess my biggest worry would be him getting bored in a couple of years and bailing, but I suspect the show will be hugely entertaining in the meantime.


----------



## willbhome (Aug 28, 2002)

TSuellentrop said:


> I want to see Crazy Christians


Amen!


ThreeSoFar'sBro said:


> Definitely a "must-watch" series here. Very well cast, well written....simply well thought out from top to bottom, beginning to end.
> 
> The clock at the very end made me laugh out loud. How cool is that?


Yep. But, I notice they're going to have to be very careful with that; I saw what appeared to be 20 minutes & change to go till airtime followed closely by 21 minutes.

This could easily become my favorite new show this year. The only glaring error I saw (besides the clock) is that Jordan described the show as the network's flagship program. No real mainstream network has their flagship airing at 11:30 pm, on Friday's or any other night.

Beyond that, they'd be wise to skip the prayer most of the time.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

Is it just me, or was there a small Chandler Bing reference in there when Whitford's character said something to Perry's character along the lines of "Could you BE any more (something)?"


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

I can't help but think that at THIS point, the "Could you BE any more ..." or "That is SO ..." stuff that Friends popularized has really become pretty common vernacular. Which is, surprisingly, what makes it sound "real".


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

jking said:


> Is it just me, or was there a small Chandler Bing reference in there when Whitford's character said something to Perry's character along the lines of "Could you BE any more (something)?"


Yep, he said, "Could you _be_ any more Jewish?!"


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

SparkleMotion said:


> I can't help but think that at THIS point, the "Could you BE any more ..." or "That is SO ..." stuff that Friends popularized has really become pretty common vernacular. Which is, surprisingly, what makes it sound "real".


I agree, but the fact that he said it to Chandler is what made me think it was intentional.


----------



## gunbunny (Sep 3, 2006)

sonnik said:


> I believe SNL lore calls this the "rundown board".
> 
> Speaking of, did anyone catch if they have a "Weekend Update" type device they could write in for even more topical debate?


On the rundown board, there was a card titled "News 60" in the 12AM slot, so I assume that is their version of Weekend Update


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

rkester said:


> For some reason I get Sarah Paulson and Monica Potter mixed up. I think its their faces I dunno.
> 
> I just realized as I was looking her up just now that she (sarah) was also briefly in Serenity in the video image on the ship on Miranda. And she was in Deadwood. Im so dense missing that. Whats wrong with me.
> 
> Back to the show... I liked it. I loved it. I want more of it. Why is it only an hour and once a week!


My problem with Sarah is every time I see her, I expect her to say "Someone's at the Door. Someone's at the door"


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

What show was the quote from? The "you've got spunk. I hate spunk" line.


----------



## BenderSD1 (Dec 27, 2002)

Mary Tyler Moore


----------



## Frank_M (Sep 9, 2001)

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Mary Tyler Moore and Larry Sanders... two, in my opinion, of the best shows of all time.

But I think the logic that lead us to see a decent amount of the "show within the show" on MTM and Larry Sanders is the same logic that will lead us NOT to see the same on S60.

On MTM - we saw snippets to prove how terrible Ted Baxter was, and/or how low budget their show was. Those two things are easy to show, and to write. (of course, it was done brilliantly)

On Sanders - We saw his interviews mostly to show how comfortable he is on the air, while completely the opposite off air. Again, easy to write and something that translates well.

But on S60... the point of the show is that Matt and Danny bring brilliance to the show. So if we see sketch comedy, and it isn't of a whole different level of funny... then suddenly no amount of being "told" in the show that they are geniuses will make us believe it.

Look at how much chat there has been about the cold open.

So I think we will see specific things that relate to the characters individual stories, or "special" incidents that happen on air.... but skits just to show us how "talented" they are? Nope. I would expect we'll see their talent through reports of ratings, reviews, etc.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

BenderSD1 said:


> Mary Tyler Moore


That's right. Lou Grant said it.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

BeanMeScot said:


> That's right. Lou Grant said it.


In the pilot. Such simple times. "You're on your own now after all."


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Domandred said:


> Heck just with the Pilot and the second episode I could just turn off my season pass as with the second episode I thought had enough closure that I could never watch the show again and be okay with that.


That's kind of how I feel too. I think there is a lot of mileage to get out of the premise, but I don't know that the characters and the setting warrants following it. So far I'll keep watching though.

I watched one episode of TWW, but that was the debate episode last season, so it was very atypical. I have only watched a few minutes of the rest of that series.

However, it's easy to see that this show is modeled almost exactly after TWW - which also unfortunately means that I have a hard time watching it, for two reasons:

1. I mentioned this in the Pilot thread but I have to say it again... the lighting. What the HELL is up with it? There were people standing up along the walls in the meeting room, with pens and papers... IN THE DARK. Almost the entire episode took place during daylight hours, but apparently everyone on the show keeps the BLINDS shut and just some mood lighting on in the corner. It really bugs the hell out of me that people are constantly standing around with their faces in half darkness, in an office during the middle of the day. I realize they are trying to create some sort of mood here, but I don't see how lighting everything as if it's a night club is helpful. Even the outdoor scene in the beginning was shot as if there was a dark cloud up in the sky. I half expected the press conference to end with everyone running for cover from the rain. 

It almost borders on incompetence to me - I think even "The X-Files" had better lighting, and they were TRYING to shoot these kinds of scenes in darkness.  I'm trying to like this show, but this is annoying...

2. Everyone speaks as if they're not talking to eachother, but talking for the benefit of the audience. I half expect the characters to start facing the camera going "You got that reference? This is IMPORTANT." The overall stories of both the pilot and this episode were good, with interesting themes and character motivations, but the dialogue is actually pretty heavyhanded, which surprised me since Sorkin is getting so much praise for his writing. Too much "adult after school special" if that makes sense.

But I enjoyed the actual opening they showed, and I like the overall tone of the show, so I'll keep trying to get over the two issues mentioned above... those are pretty big ones for me though... :/


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Another strong showing. I thought it was interesting how they had the prayer before the show, and most of the main characters participated. Plus someone said "who's turn is it this time", like this happened for every show. Very nice.

Another excellent line was Jordan charging a "coward's tax" by upping the commercial costs to any company that caved to pressure over the content of the show. What a cool idea!


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

> As a person who never watched Sports Night or The West Wing (that's right), I must say this show is brilliant.


 Ditto here for me. :up:

We'll never see "Crazy Christians". In it's way, it will be just like the "Venus Butterfly" of _LA Law_ - discussed, but never seen. (Though the reasons differ as to why they won't show either one of them, both wouldn't make it past S&P.)

But the idea's the same - just like the sketch, with VB you'd have to create something so over the top, so fantastic as a sexual move, and yet somehow unknown to people. Like describing an invented move from the "previously-unknown appendix of the Kama Sutra." Well, no pressure there. 

Best to leave it unshown. As said already, they have to show *some* sketches but not that one.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

One way or another, I'm guessing next week will have some sort of reaction to the airing of Crazy Christians...


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> let's not forget Dan from Sports Night too. Sorkin does like to reuse names. I just noticed this.


No, I hadn't forgotten Dan from Sports Night, but there was enough distance in time from Sports Night that it wasn't bugging me.

The West Wing is over, but it's still in re-runs and I channel-flip past it all the time when I've run out of new stuff on the Now Playing List.

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

mrpantstm said:


> Joshua Malina will show up to interview for the AP position...errr wrong show.
> 
> Agreed though, I'd like to see them both again, especially Josh Charles.


I thought I heard Joshua Malina's voice during the press conference. Was he one of the reporters (hidden in the back row)?

Jan


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

Wow. Great show. Definitely the best new show this season for me and one of my favorite shows overall.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

My wife and I laughed and laughed through the whole episode. It is definitely classic Sorkin. This is the show Sports Night could have been if it had been an hour long (I always thought the downfall for Sports Night was that it wasn't an hour and thus got pigeon holed as a comedy). Studio 60 is all the best parts of West Wing and Sports Night rolled into one yummy show.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Damn, this is some good TV!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> I guess I'm in the minority... I felt this episode was much weaker than last week's. I felt that a good portion of the studio 60 behind-the-scenes were just off in tone. This show emits an air of seriousness and many of those scenes were farcical or sitcom material. Like when all the writers describe george w bush cold opens.
> 
> The opening song was ok, but between that and the aforementioned scene, I feel that Sorkin does not at all respect SNL. It's almost got a smarmy holier-than-thou tone to the way it presents the writing and skits. Did Sorkin ever even work on SNL? It's almost like he has a long-standing dislike of it.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. I found this episode a bit slower than the last one and I had a harder time staying focused (maybe I was just a bit too tired to concetrate). I am finding the Sorkin style a bit overbearing and I agree it seems like much of the dialogue is retreaded from Sports Night, another show about TV. I think if I had been a fan of The West Wing as well as Sports Night, by the third go around with this style, it would really turn me off. Since there's been a few years since I've watched Sorkin (outside of the odd episode of SN I've watched on DVD), I can handle it a little better. While the premise of the show is still very good, and I'm still interested, I could see it getting old fairly quickly. Since neither SN or TWW had huge ratings and were more of cult following, I could see that this show could wind up a casualty of the ratings wars up against CSI Miami, etc. This could very much be a show like Commander In Chief which got great early ratings and critical acclaim but just couldn't sustain it...


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Damn, this is some good TV!


That pretty much summed up my reaction after the show, too.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Frank_M said:


> But on S60... the point of the show is that Matt and Danny bring brilliance to the show. So if we see sketch comedy, and it isn't of a whole different level of funny... then suddenly no amount of being "told" in the show that they are geniuses will make us believe it.


I don't think that is really the point of the show. The show is not Two Brilliant TV Producers, it is a show about people with a tv show as a backdrop. We don't even know for sure that Matt and Danny are really supposed to be brilliant or not. We have some details that lead us to believe that is how they are perceived by a select group of people....

Your argument would be like saying the MTM show was about Mary Richards being a great TV Producer. Of course that was not the point of the show at all.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I think the ppoint of having Matt and Danny on is not so much their perceived brilliance, but that they are a new chance for the show, to do something different. The great thing about the opening number wasn't that it was hilarious (which it wasn't) but that it tackled last week's issue head on, and with style and flair, and did something unusual. It wasn't another "Bush is dumb" opening.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

I wonder if Bartlett exists in the S60 universe? Does Sports Night exist there too?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Erm.. no I think the point IS that they are brilliant because they mentioned it numerous times in both episodes that the show was really good back then and how great they are.


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

TheMerk said:


> I wonder if Bartlett exists in the S60 universe? Does Sports Night exist there too?


Well, maybe not Bartlett, but perhaps his successor?


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

TheMerk said:


> I wonder if Bartlett exists in the S60 universe? Does Sports Night exist there too?


Given that Felicity Huffman exists in the S60 universe, then how can Sports Night exist, too?

And if Bartlett exists, why would they be making Bush jokes if Bartlett exists?

So I'd guess the answer is no to both your questions.


----------



## miscellaneous (Oct 28, 2004)

I don't understand how some very bright people in this thread can't put themselves in the right position to appreciate the opening number. Let's see, in the show's world:

- Friday night the head of the show went live on TV with a diatribe.
- The head of the show was fired.
- The new president of the network hired a new creative team.
- The new producer of the show admitted live on TV that he was caught doing cocaine.
- There is a huge conservative uproar about potential Christian-bashing content on the next show.

....and.... GO.

The show opens with a classy, light, tongue-in-cheek acceptance of the current state and position of the show, poking fun at the most pressing issues (Christian bashing and cocaine use) of the week. It's not the Same Old Thing, it's not the Crazy Christians sketch, it's not GWB, and most of all, it's not sophomoric.

I think the audience's reaction was right on - light laughter, and then a standing ovation. For a 'formerly important, now floundering' show with serious issues, it was the right way to open the new era. It wasn't brilliant comedy, it was a brilliant handling of the situation.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

BeanMeScot said:


> My problem with Sarah is every time I see her, I expect her to say "Someone's at the Door. Someone's at the door"


My wife said the same thing. Too bad American Gothic never made it.

I hada real hard time recognizing here though. I said somethign in the last thread, she has had some major work done on her face or something and she look different. Even her speech is affected (unless that is part of the character somehow)


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

It might be a little early, but right now this is my favorite show on TV, right ahead of The Office and Lost.

I'm a little surprised as to how much is being read into the show within a show, as how good that show is isn't necessarily important. It's more the interaction of characters and their reaction to events that creates opportunity for Sorkin's great dialogue that really pushes the show forward. In any case, the opening was at least as funny as anything on SNL the past 5 years, so right there it's a winner. And I have to agree with everyone else who said that it may not have be a great comedy sketch (and wasn't really meant to be), but was a perfect way to open the new (old) era.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

misc - i felt the same way. i loved the opening. thought it was the perfect way to handle what happened, poking fun at and apologizing and sort of giving the audience a hug all in one. I was cheering at the end whn they showed it.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

johnperkins21 said:


> It might be a little early, but right now this is my favorite show on TV, right ahead of The Office and Lost.
> 
> I'm a little surprised as to how much is being read into the show within a show, as how good that show is isn't necessarily important. It's more the interaction of characters and their reaction to events that creates opportunity for Sorkin's great dialogue that really pushes the show forward. In any case, the opening was at least as funny as anything on SNL the past 5 years, so right there it's a winner. And I have to agree with everyone else who said that it may not have be a great comedy sketch (and wasn't really meant to be), but was a perfect way to open the new (old) era.


I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote above. It's very important whether the show is good. If the show is bad then either:

A) We are being asked to suspend disbelief far too much, and there is no real purpose in showing the skit in the first place.

or, worse,

B) We are watching a show about an awful show, in which case it should be more ed woodian and less "look how clever everyone is, including me, the writer if this show!".

I'm sorry, but I can't suspend disbelief if the writing is set up for me not to have to. You don't introduce a macguffin like the cold open musical number and then reveal it to be something crappy. Just don't show it then. I remember sports night being GOOD, or at least, as good as sportscenter. So far Studio 60 is as bad as the worst SNL episodes from this year, yet we are supposed to somehow believe it is good.

I can't decide whether you have completely unusual comedic tastes or simply haven't watched enough SNL. This musical number wasn't even as funny as the digital short music videos with natalie portman and others, and there were a number of those this year. Nevermind some of the really good skits that have been on SNL over the past few years. Not saying that the show is chock full of them, but they were there. And the Studio 60 thing was pretty mediocre, so I'd say about 75% of SNL skits were as funny as that thing.


----------



## miscellaneous (Oct 28, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> And the Studio 60 thing was pretty mediocre, so I'd say about 75% of SNL skits were as funny as that thing.


Oh, OK. Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because *my opinion* is below:

SNL is painfully awful. Painfully, wretchedly awful. The handling of just that one sketch in Studio 60 is better than anything that's been on SNL since Will Farrell left. The sketch wasn't brilliant comedy, but it was an artful, warm, light handling of a situation that happened to be funny at the same time. SNL is painfully, wretchedly awful. It makes my stomach twist in knots to watch it. I sometimes think the only reasons I subject myself to that show are 1) to watch for glimmers of hope, and 2) to make sure I have a full understanding of the show so that I can successfully argue that it's awful.

If you didn't like the musical number, so be it. We have wildly different tastes.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

It should be noted that I don't have much respect for musical numbers in shows generally. I find them to rarely be any better than the average Wayne Brady improvised number on Whose Line... the exceptions being stuff like the natalie portman / right said fred type stuff they do on SNL occasionally.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I think some of you are missing hte point of Studio 60. It's not about the sketches. It's not about the musical numbers. It's about the people and how they interact behind the scenes.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

rkester said:


> I think some of you are missing hte point of Studio 60. It's not about the sketches. It's not about the musical numbers. It's about the people and how they interact behind the scenes.


Exactly. If they could write a fantastic sketch show for the backdrop, then they would be producing that instead of this behind the scenes show. Studio 60 is just the reason for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Exactly. If they could write a fantastic sketch show for the backdrop, then they would be producing that instead of this behind the scenes show. Studio 60 is just the reason for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.


Then don't show the sketches. Simple solution. If you show a sketch and imply it is good, then it should be good.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Then don't show the sketches. Simple solution. If you show a sketch and imply it is good, then it should be good.


You do know that there's no such thing as warp speed on Star Trek, right?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> You do know that there's no such thing as warp speed on Star Trek, right?


True, but if they say "enable warp speed" and then get outrun by an 80-year-old on a bicycle, that would be about the same thing.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> True, but if they say "enable warp speed" and then get outrun by an 80-year-old on a bicycle, that would be about the same thing.


Should Matthew Perry really have gotten back surgery and been piped up on pain pills for his scene, too?


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> Then don't show the sketches. Simple solution. If you show a sketch and imply it is good, then it should be good.


I did not really like the sketch on its own. However, as others have said, it was a very good way to make fun of themselves and show their humility and that they want to make it up to their fans. The audience wasn't laughing through the whole thing, which shows that they didn't think it was all that funny either. It's the fact that it received a standing ovation, that their target audience, which is probably different that the real show's target, enjoyed it for what it was.

I don't remember them ever saying that this would be a hilariously funny opening, only that it would get the message across, which it did. As anyone who watches SNL, one sketch does not the show make. Some people love toonces, while others hate the Church Lady. Different strokes and all. My wife hates Jackass, while I think it's quite funny sometimes. Just because you didn't like this sketch as much as other people within the show, doesn't mean you won't like other sketches they end up showing. And it's still a parody of SNL, so showing how brilliant those writers think they are when they come up with stuff that isn't all that funny, could be part of the satire.


----------



## Ferguson (Oct 17, 2005)

IndyJones1023 said:


> You do know that there's no such thing as warp speed on Star Trek, right?


 What?!?  Next you'll be telling me that Sulu isn't gay!


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

And. That. William....Shatner....Can. Act!


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

Lee L said:


> And. That. William....Shatner....Can. Act!


In all fairness, he can act much better than he can sing

Luck in the sky with diamonds . . . .


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Forgive me for coming into this thread so late and not reading every post....but I am confused about something:

Are these guys suppose to be coming in to really "clean up" the show/network or are they agreeing with the guy's rant and are going to make it more edgy and thus funny? I swear that studio lady said something like "And if I wouldn't show it to my kids then I won't put it on" which leads me to think they want to clean up their network....but then she encourages them to put on the Crazy Christian skit....I'm confused.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

To me, I don't mind if they don't show sketches all the time. But if the whole episode is about the making of a particular sketch, I would be disappointed if they didn't show the finished product. This whole episode was about them creating their first sketch, and so I'm glad they showed it.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

pmyers said:


> Forgive me for coming into this thread so late and not reading every post....but I am confused about something:
> 
> Are these guys suppose to be coming in to really "clean up" the show/network or are they agreeing with the guy's rant and are going to make it more edgy and thus funny? I swear that studio lady said something like "And if I wouldn't show it to my kids then I won't put it on" which leads me to think they want to clean up their network....but then she encourages them to put on the Crazy Christian skit....I'm confused.


I'm pretty sure she said that if either she likes it, her parents would like it, or her kids would like it then she would put on. If she can't imagine any of those 3 happening, she won't. I don't think she said anything about "cleaning up" the network.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

pmyers said:


> I swear that studio lady said something like "And if I wouldn't show it to my kids then I won't put it on" which leads me to think they want to clean up their network....but then she encourages them to put on the Crazy Christian skit....I'm confused.


That was one of three criteria she listed. But then she said that if a show couldn't meet any of the three criteria _then_ she wouldn't show it.

So Studio 60 doesn't have to be "kids safe" as long as it meets either of the other two options (which unfortunately I can't remember). 
And given that is is a late night sketch comedy type show I doubt that being able to show all of it to the Studio President's kids is a high priority. 

Edit: I was way too slow getting this posted.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

I would compare it to "Bohemian Rhapsody" at the beginning of the Wayne's World movie. For people who saw the movie and had never gotten to know the characters on SNL, that segment probably wasn't that funny, but for those who knew Wayne and Garth, it was funnier. Not saying it was LOL hilarious, but hopefully you get my point.

Anyway, by the same token, the cold open might not have been as funny for those of us who have just met these characters, as it might have been for the people in the fictional Studio 60 universe who have grown to know these actors over the years and enjoy seeing them in this light and are "pulling for them" simply because they are fans of the show. It's possible the standing ovation at the end is just as much because of a sense of relief, because they (the audience) can see the potential of the new regime.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Erm.. no I think the point IS that they are brilliant because they mentioned it numerous times in both episodes that the show was really good back then and how great they are.


A few people in a very narrow universe. Just as I mentioned. There is know public anknowledgement of this as a unvirsally accepted fact. They did not show critics raving or ma and pa public exclaiming how great it is to have these geniuses back. You got the word of a few people who worked on the show previously and basically the new President of NBS. Those are the only people who have even come close to mentioning they are brilliant.

People are making this into something it is not. For all we know they are horribly grasping at straws of a sinking ship.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Wow. Long discussion that basically boils down to:
1) Humor is a very personal thing. What is funny to one person may not be funny to another.
2) They showed a sketch that, because of line 1, some people liked and some people didn't.
3) The sketch referenced in line 2 comprised about 2 minutes of a 42 minute show, but somehow has monopolized 99% of conversation here and has determined whether people like the show or not.

Frankly, as said before, I don't think it was supposed to be FUNNY as much as to make a point in a WITTY way (and the point is "this is our show now, and it's going to be a much different show than Ricky and Ron wrote.")

Now, not to be a thread police, but can we move on? I honestly think everyone has said what is going to be said about the cold open, and we're just going in circles now.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I remember sports night being GOOD, or at least, as good as sportscenter. So far Studio 60 is as bad as the worst SNL episodes from this year, yet we are supposed to somehow believe it is good.


I think you disprove your own point. The actual sports show on sports night would have been god-awful and unwatchable. That was not the point of the show. It would have been a mediocre show at best. It never was realistically comparable to Sportscenter in terms of a quality sports news broadcast.

That did not hurt its ability to serve as a backdrop for the story-telling. The exact same thing here. I got to admit I never gave two thoughts to the quality level of the show within a show, because it is not terribly relevant to the story line. There are enough other indicators to support whatever intent is expected at the time. It is actually a bit ridiculous to think that a show-within-a-show would some how offer superior quality to an actual stand-alone show that has been succesful for decades. So you have to realize it is not really a reasonable expectation as a viewer to think a show could do that. Thus you suspend a bit of disbelief accept the story for what it is and go along for the ride... or you don't.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I guess I don't get how you can determine that "Studio 60 is as bad as the worst SNL," when we've seen precisely 1 aborted sketch (the Bush/Cheney sketch, which was clearly awful, and it was supposed to be) and one full cold open (not even really a sketch per-se, more a "segment.") And as you admit, you don't like musical numbers to begin with.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

DancnDude said:


> I'm pretty sure she said that if either she likes it, her parents would like it, or her kids would like it then she would put on. If she can't imagine any of those 3 happening, she won't. I don't think she said anything about "cleaning up" the network.


Exactly. She is pretty much covering all the demographics except maybe 18-25 with that statement (and she may even mean that with the kids comment even if she can't ahve a child that old). Basically, a show could be a family show or an adult show or just a kids show and still have an audience. Certainly all three don;t have to like it if enough of one group does to justify advertising money being spent.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

marksman said:


> A few people in a very narrow universe. Just as I mentioned. There is know public anknowledgement of this as a unvirsally accepted fact. They did not show critics raving or ma and pa public exclaiming how great it is to have these geniuses back. You got the word of a few people who worked on the show previously and basically the new President of NBS. Those are the only people who have even come close to mentioning they are brilliant.
> 
> People are making this into something it is not. For all we know they are horribly grasping at straws of a sinking ship.


Agreed, and I think the whole discussion has veered into rather annoying nitpicking, but Matt did just win a Writer's Guild award (in the pilot), and according to either Matt or Danny (can't recall who said it) since they were fired they've gone on to become superstars/rich/famous (or something similar), so I think the assumption that they are brilliant is certainly supportable.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

marksman said:


> I think you disprove your own point. The actual sports show on sports night would have been god-awful and unwatchable. That was not the point of the show. It would have been a mediocre show at best. It never was realistically comparable to Sportscenter in terms of a quality sports news broadcast.


Hmm... I thought it was pretty comparable to sportscenter at the time. Going to have to watch some re-runs now...


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Wow. Long discussion that basically boils down to:
> 1) Humor is a very personal thing. What is funny to one person may not be funny to another.
> 2) They showed a sketch that, because of line 1, some people liked and some people didn't.
> 3) The sketch referenced in line 2 comprised about 2 minutes of a 42 minute show, but somehow has monopolized 99% of conversation here and has determined whether people like the show or not.
> ...


+1

I couldn't have said it better! In fact, I couldn't have said it nearly as good. Thanks for summing up my thoughts!


----------



## jmrife (Jan 12, 2004)

I am willing to put up $5 that says we will, at some point, get to see some part of the "Crazy Christians" sketch.

Bet it shows up as a re-run on a TV screen in a scene when the show is on hiatus, with the characters not paying attention to it, going about their business.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I guess I don't get how you can determine that "Studio 60 is as bad as the worst SNL," when we've seen precisely 1 aborted sketch (the Bush/Cheney sketch, which was clearly awful, and it was supposed to be) and one full cold open (not even really a sketch per-se, more a "segment.") And as you admit, you don't like musical numbers to begin with.


Hey, I did say, "So far".

As for dropping the whole conversation... I'm ok with it until next week anyway! I don't really mind it this week as much as the thought that this show will continue to show us some mediocre skits in a "wink wink" way that makes me infer sorkin thinks that SNL is crap or that he and/or this show is better than everyone.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

jmrife said:


> I am willing to put up $5 that says we will, at some point, get to see some part of the "Crazy Christians" sketch.
> 
> Bet it shows up as a re-run on a TV screen in a scene when the show is on hiatus, with the characters not paying attention to it, going about their business.


I'll put up $0.05 that says there ISN'T a "Crazy Christians" sketch (at this point anyway), only a title used as a plot device.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

Anyone concerned that the ratings for week two are down from week one?

From the Futon Critic: "As for "Studio 60," week two of the series fell 13.79% in households and 10% in adults 18-49 from its premiere (households: 8.7/14; adults 18-49: 5.0 on 9/18/06)."


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

I would hope that a portion of that was caused by the Monday Night Football game with the Saints, but yes it is a slight concern.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Andrew_S said:


> Anyone concerned that the ratings for week two are down from week one?
> 
> From the Futon Critic: "As for "Studio 60," week two of the series fell 13.79% in households and 10% in adults 18-49 from its premiere (households: 8.7/14; adults 18-49: 5.0 on 9/18/06)."


It's pretty typical for a new show to drop off a bit after the initial airing. There are the rare mega-hits, that grow their ratings based on word of mouth, but most shows see higher ratings for the pilot, and a certain amount of those viewers decide it's not for them and they don't come back. If the ratings continue to fall 13% per week, then we have a problem, but I don't think that the dropoff from week one to week two is problematic.


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

Something I always liked about _The West Wing_ was how the writers would sometimes introduce a term or phrase that was familiar and commonly known to political insiders but was unfamiliar to much of the general public. Similarly, I don't think I had ever heard of a "cold open" before this show, so there's another style similarity.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

In honor of _Studio 60_ and _30 Rock_ both being about "shows within shows," *MSN TV* has a feature highlighting some of the best (and worst) "shows within shows."

Of course both the _Mary Tyler Moore Show_ and _Larry Sanders Show_ are included. Along with _Sports Night_.


----------



## frankmint (Feb 1, 2004)

jking said:


> I'll put up $0.05 that says there ISN'T a "Crazy Christians" sketch (at this point anyway), only a title used as a plot device.


I agree, but for a different reason. Perry's character was concered when the idea was leaked because he knew it would not be funny a second time. Once you steal (or leak) a joke, it's yours....

I did not notice the sketch on the board so, my thought may not apply if it was there.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

In regards to these two writing and producing - don't forget that they were going to do a movie on Nikola Tesla (before the producer got caught doing blow  ). Sounds like a serious subject, not a comedic farce. 

And didn't ESPN have a record ratings night with the Saints game? Won't happen every week.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

frankmint said:


> I agree, but for a different reason. Perry's character was concered when the idea was leaked because he knew it would not be funny a second time. Once you steal (or leak) a joke, it's yours....
> 
> I did not notice the sketch on the board so, my thought may not apply if it was there.


It was there.


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

The board:

11:30
Very Model
MW Monologue**
Centaur The Courier**
Comm 1
Crazy Christians

Jamaican BBQ Hut**
Comm 2
70's Family
Mannequin Robinson*
Ballerina Tryouts

12:00
Comm 3
Bowl Orchestra L.A. Opera Chorus*
News 60
Madonna Inn*
Comm 4

Julia Child's Child**
Commedia Dell'Arte
In Line @ Club*
Station Break

12:30
Happytown*
Comm 5
Bowl Orchestra L.A. Opera Chorus*
Comm 6

Dig Dim Sum*
Shoulder Parrot
Comm 7
Beating Up Rudy**
Good Night**

Discarded:*
Matador Bank Teller*
Tenth Grade*
Vacuum Championship*
??AT 2500*


EDIT Fixed with help from LoadStar's HD DVR

* - LoadStar added unknowns (or in discarded I just didn't list)
** - LoadStar edits

Sidebar - "Wasn't Matador Bank Teller" the only card on the board earlier in the episode?


----------



## Uncle Briggs (Sep 11, 2004)

I wasn't sure if I was going to watch this weeks show. I wasn't crazy about the pilot. I'm glad I watched. This week's show was much better. I think it's a keeper.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

miscellaneous said:


> I don't understand how some very bright people in this thread can't put themselves in the right position to appreciate the opening number. Let's see, in the show's world:
> 
> - Friday night the head of the show went live on TV with a diatribe.
> - The head of the show was fired.
> ...


I thought
This says is perfectly for me. I thought the opening number was not funny in a "show this on SNL today and people will laugh", but in the context of the show, and given the premises of what had bee going on, I thought it was fantastic. I did everything that they set out to do, when they were talking about what the opening skit should be and do. Hell, I was smiling throughout, and wanted to get up and clap at the end too!

If I wanted to watch comedy sketches that just make me laugh, I will watch a comedy show. I am watching this show for the personal relationships. If they throw in a skit every so often as needed (and I think this one WAS needed), that is fine, but let's not get caught up in whether the skits themselves are LOL funny or not.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

In the context of the S60 universe, though, the previous week's fiasco was huge entertainment news. There were no secret behind-the-scenes shenanigans leading to a producer change...it was live for anyone to see (though if the show airs at 11:30pm pacific time, that makes for a pretty damn small East Coast audience!).

So the opening sketch with the song was the response that everyone wanted/needed to confirm the show wasn't going to pretend nothing happened. It confirmed the rumors and brushed it all aside instead of acting nonchalant (which is the usual chicken**** response to embarrassing media matters). THAT'S what the guys were going for...and that sense of character is the source of the respect they garner from their people and employers.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Domandred said:


> This is gonna be tough since I had my Tivo on med quality so can't make out everything. Also doesn't help that someone has bad handwritting. Help fill in the blanks and correct errors please. Will be interesting to see how it progresses through the seasons.
> 
> Musical guest going by red card and similar looking text. Two numbers per show is probably correct.
> 
> ...


11:30
Very Model
MW Monologue
Centaur The Courier
Comm 1
Crazy Christians

Jamaican BBQ Hut
Comm 2
70's Family
Mannequin Robinson
Ballerina Tryouts

12:00
Comm 3
Bowl Orchestra L.A. Opera Chorus
News 60
Madonna Inn
Comm 4

Julia Child's Child
Commedia Dell'Arte
In Line @ Club
Station Break

12:30
Happytown
Comm 5
Bowl Orchestra L.A. Opera Chorus
Comm 6

Dig Dim Sum
Shoulder Parrot
Comm 7
Beating Up Rudy
Good Nights

Discarded sketches:
Matador Bank Teller
Tenth Grade
Vacuum Championship
??AT 2500 (first few letters partially covered by previous card)

Filled in the typos/missings... still had it on my HD DVR.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

SparkleMotion said:


> (though if the show airs at 11:30pm pacific time, that makes for a pretty damn small East Coast audience!).


Well, the shows universe has a sketch comedy show as the networks "flagship" show so I suppose they live in bizzaro world anyway.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I wouldn't worry about the reduced viewership. According to my local paper, monday night football on ESPN beat all network and cable shows. I don't think that's going to happen again... it was the whole U2 / New Orleanse dome thing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SparkleMotion said:


> In the context of the S60 universe, though, the previous week's fiasco was huge entertainment news. There were no secret behind-the-scenes shenanigans leading to a producer change...it was live for anyone to see (though if the show airs at 11:30pm pacific time, that makes for a pretty damn small East Coast audience!).


The show airs live at 8:30 pm Pacific so it's live on the East Coast at 11:30 pm. I don't remember exactly where in the episode this was confirmed, but I definitely saw it. Other timezones are surely tape delayed, just like SNL.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> I wouldn't worry about the reduced viewership. According to my local paper, monday night football on ESPN beat all network and cable shows. I don't think that's going to happen again... it was the whole U2 / New Orleanse dome thing.


If U2 had anything to do with it, I feel very sorry for the state of music in our country. I'm sure that the Saints playing at home in the Superdome is what did it, especially considering how badly U2 sucked.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

johnperkins21 said:


> If U2 had anything to do with it, I feel very sorry for the state of music in our country. I'm sure that the Saints playing at home in the Superdome is what did it, especially considering how badly U2 sucked.


I can't believe it would take an event like that to make you feel sorry for the state of music in our country. I mean, paris hilton has a cd that sold well, after all...


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> I can't believe it would take an event like that to make you feel sorry for the state of music in our country. I mean, paris hilton has a cd that sold well, after all...


Have you heard the Paris Hilton CD? It is a scathing parody of pop music that is pure genius. Oh wait, it was meant to be serious? Nevermind. You do have a point though, it's just that they were so bad. I never liked U2, but this performance was worse than Roseanne Barr's National Anthem.


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> <SNIP>
> 
> Filled in the typos/missings... still had it on my HD DVR.


Yea I gotta get me an HD 

Thanks for the edits


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

My guess is if that they show a big part of a sketch, it will be because it is bad.

Part of the friction early on will be that the writing staff may not be all that good.

I think we will see that in bits and pieces of some sketches.

If they show part of a sketch that is supposedly funny, it will be to show the contrast between it and a poor sketch.

So yah, they are a tiny bit on the hook to make those sketches funny, especially since I think they will be shown as a contrast to other sketches.

-smak-


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

West Wing similarity No. 43:
Matt in the writers meeting = Leo or Bartlet in the Situation Room

If SNL exists in this universe, I don't get how Studio 60 is perceived as such a groundbreaking show. It looks like a big ripoff of SNL that started 10 years later. Same format: musical guests, fake news and everything.

I don't think the show airs live on the west coast. I think it airs just like SNL. Live on the east coast and in the central time zone, and on tape at 10:30 in Mountain and 11:30 in Pacific. Jordan McDeere told people at the press conference to "tune in Friday night at 11:30."

They will show sketches on this show the same way they showed Bartlet speeches. Sometimes they'll show whole thing


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

If it's on a Friday night, shouldn't it be at 11:35-ish?  Or maybe NBS doesn't ascribe to that programming model.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

aindik said:


> I don't think the show airs live on the west coast. I think it airs just like SNL. Live on the east coast and in the central time zone, and on tape at 10:30 in Mountain and 11:30 in Pacific. Jordan McDeere told people at the press conference to "tune in Friday night at 11:30."


The only way it could air live on the west coast is if they did two tapings.

-smak-


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

smak said:


> The only way it could air live on the west coast is if they did two tapings.
> 
> -smak-


Well, the other way it could air live is if they aired it at 8:30, which others in the thread suggested. I was just pointing out that I don't think they do that.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

So, presumably, only the Eastern and Central time zones saw the first ep's producer meltdown on the network. I'm sure they ran a "best of" episode in its entirety for the mountain and Pacific zones? (Though these days, it's not like you can keep information like that secret long, what with 24 hour news networks and YouTube, GoogleVideo, MySpace, et.al.)


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

aindik said:


> They will show sketches on this show the same way they showed Bartlet speeches. Sometimes they'll show whole thing


I kinda figure they'll treat it more like Sports Night, which was also about the behind the scenes of a TV show - they'll show us the first part or the last part of a sketch here or there, much like we saw the first part or last part of the SN "shows".

And we need Natalie, of course.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

I didn't see this mentioned earlier, but it's funny to note that SNL used "Modern Major General"  a dozen years ago.

Still loving S60, though. Maybe I need to go back and give Sports Night another shot.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

smak said:


> The only way it could air live on the west coast is if they did two tapings.


If it aired live on both coasts (at different times) it wouldn't need any tapings.


----------



## ewolfr (Feb 12, 2001)

aindik said:


> I don't think the show airs live on the west coast. I think it airs just like SNL. Live on the east coast and in the central time zone, and on tape at 10:30 in Mountain and 11:30 in Pacific. Jordan McDeere told people at the press conference to "tune in Friday night at 11:30."


Here is the ep description from my Tivo for 10/9



Spoiler



"The West Coast Delay"

The team rushes to fix the West Coast feed to avoid airing material copied from another comic.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

dswallow said:


> If it aired live on both coasts (at different times) it wouldn't need any tapings.


Well, i meant two different live broadcasts.

And there's no way a program airs at 8:30 in one time zone and 11:30 in another.

Sports and award shows are about the only thing on TV that does this kind of thing.

-smak-


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

smak said:


> Well, i meant two different live broadcasts.


In the first episode, we saw the cast and crew going to a Hollywood night spot for a party after the show was over. It's very unlikely they'd do that if they were going to have to do the show again in an hour and a half.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

serumgard said:


> That musical sequence was brilliant and will be put on my iPod. Sarah Paulson is definitely moving up my crush list.


Just fyi, Sarah plays for the other team.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jeeters said:


> Just fyi, Sarah plays for the other team.


The cool thing about celebrity crushes is that stuff like that has exactly zero impact on one's chances...


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The cool thing about celebrity crushes is that stuff like that has exactly zero impact on one's chances...


That's what Ross though when he laminated his list.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Ok, confused here...  
I thought Aaron Sorkin hired Mark McKinney from The Kids in the Hall (and from a particulary bleak Season of SNL) to write sketches for the show-within-the-show. Didn't I read that somewhere?  
So they DO have a sketch writer...right???
BTW...agree with all the posters who call this the best new show of the season. I look forward to its developing the different characters! :up: :up:


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

Defamer.com is hilarious. How YOU doin', Regina?


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

SparkleMotion said:


> Defamer.com is hilarious. How YOU doin', Regina?


I hadn't seen that website before..it is hilarious!  And do we all see how the article references the David Hyde Pierce monologue?


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

Did nobody at SNL watch "Studio 60?"

Going with a Bush open in the first episode of the season made me laugh for all the wrong reasons...


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Jeeters said:
> 
> 
> > Just fyi, Sarah plays for the other team.
> ...


The funnier (more ironic part) is that she's playing the person of faith. Must make the religious right fume to see the one person of strong faith on the show and know that she's breaking the commandments as handed down by Fallwell and Robertson


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

smak said:


> Well, i meant two different live broadcasts.
> 
> And there's no way a program airs at 8:30 in one time zone and 11:30 in another.
> 
> ...


and even then, the only award show broadcast to get that treatment is the Oscars.


----------

