# Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip "The Wrap Party" (10/23, Spoilers)



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I liked this episode. If you were looking for laughs, you didn't get them tonight, but what you got was some really, really great character moments. The scene with the old guy in the writer's room was a little on-the-nose, but still very moving nonetheless.

The one thing I picked up on - another Sorkin Plagarizing Sorkin moment... the bit with "I almost kissed Matt." "Where?" "On the mouth." "No, where in the building??" was very close to a scene from _The American President_:

"Why did I have to kiss him?"
"You kissed him? You didn't tell me that. Where did you kiss him?"
"On the mouth."
"Where in the White House?"

I liked the scene with the comedian... he had that stunned look down perfect, and rightly so - how do you react when someone tells you you just got a job you didn't know you were interviewing for and didn't know you wanted?


----------



## PKurmas (Apr 24, 2001)

I was beginning to think that everybody who said they wouldn't watch again had followed through...  

It's a good change that this week's episode wasn't all about the lead-in to the Friday night show. Focusing on things that happen to the characters rather than the characters setting up for the show does make a better chance for character development, etc.

Not bad writing to have so many people learn something about themselves or their relationships in just an hour. Most of the discoveries seemed pretty obvious and likely (especially with the baseball player hitting on Jordan & the consequences). Simon's case surprised me, though. At first I thought he was just trying to get Matt out of the party to avoid the likely fight. I think they set up a good twist having the headliner be a real bigot, making him admit his motivation. Even better that they built him back up with the new hire.

The producers seem to know that it's a dramatic show about a comedy show... maybe the viewers will figure that out too.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

PKurmas said:


> I was beginning to think that everybody who said they wouldn't watch again had followed through...


Well, that still might have happened... I of course was not among those who said that. I still believe this series is the second best new series this year.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I loved it, but don't have a lot to say about it. You can see that they are setting Jordan up as an alcoholic.

And I'm surprised at the lip Danny gave Jack.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Eli Wallach doesn't look so much like "Ugly" anymore, but he's still got chops.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> I loved it, but don't have a lot to say about it. You can see that they are setting Jordan up as an alcoholic.
> 
> And I'm surprised at the lip Danny gave Jack.


Why? What does he have to lose? Jack was bombed and probably won't remember anything... and besides, Danny doesn't work for Jack, he works for Jordan. Jack can bluster all he wants, but day-to-day operation of the network is Jordan's responsibility.

Jack could try and micromanage and fire Danny - but he won't. Besides, he probably recognizes that Danny is an integral part of making Studio 60 the (apparently) one major hit NBS has.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

The Eli Wallach story reminded me quite a bit of Sports Night. Not a bad thing at all.

The D.L. Hughley story line about looking for more diversity in the writers room was good too, though the end result was that he and Matt found someone that would just be considered a Carlton (Fresh Prince)/Uncle Tom comedian.

Still a good episode in a great series.


----------



## jwjody (Dec 7, 2002)

I thought this episode was funny. I laughed out loud at the beginning where Matt said, "I like your show Calico Gals", "It's Gilmore Girl's", and Danny's in the background, "Jesus, I wrote it down for you." Or something like that.

And when he offers his phone number to Lauren Graham, "And give this to the girl who plays your daughter."

This and Heroes run a close tie for best new show of the season.

J


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

My husband pointed out that Eli Wallach got to play a much younger man. 

imdb lists his birthdate as December 7, 1915. 

P.S. Lots of great character stuff. Especially loved the scenes with Timothy Busfield and Eli Wallach. :up: :up: :up:

Jan


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

I thought this was a great episode. 

I loved the fake history of the studio, all the entire Eli scenes, Tom's parents (who in the hell hasn't heard of Who's on First though, I think that was a bit of a stretch). All around top notch. 

From the previews from last week I was afraid it was gonna be nothin but wrap party, so glad it wasn't.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

bdowell said:


> The D.L. Hughley story line about looking for more diversity in the writers room was good too, though the end result was that he and Matt found someone that would just be considered a Carlton (Fresh Prince)/Uncle Tom comedian.


I'm waiting for the episode where Wanda Sykes is the guest star. 

Jan


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

bdowell said:


> The D.L. Hughley story line about looking for more diversity in the writers room was good too, though the end result was that he and Matt found someone that would just be considered a Carlton (Fresh Prince)/Uncle Tom comedian.


The motive for hiring him seemed to end up more Affirmative Action (get a smart black guy out of the ghetto) than Promoting Diversity (broaden the perspective of the writing staff).


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

Pretty good episode - well written, as always. I like all 3 of NBC's new shows (Heros, Friday Night Lights, and Studio 60), but I fear most of them won't make it through the season.

From what I have been reading, next week Friday Night Lights is going to borrow the S60 timeslot. If it performs significantly better then S60, that will be a major blow to the future of S60 We'll have to see how it did tonight, and how Friday Night Lights does next Monday.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

I wonder if the screenwriter had a couple hour layover at CMH airport and saw about a thousand couples that looked like Tom's mom and dad.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

bdowell said:


> The Eli Wallach story reminded me quite a bit of Sports Night.


You mean the episode "Eli's Coming"?


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

Nate's tour of the studio was ridiculously reminiscent of the West Wing. Again, that's not a bad thing.

I enjoyed the show. Some good character development.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

bdowell said:


> The D.L. Hughley story line about looking for more diversity in the writers room was good too, though the end result was that he and Matt found someone that would just be considered a Carlton (Fresh Prince)/Uncle Tom comedian.


I didn't get that feeling. Just because he isn't 'angry black man' doesn't make him an Uncle Tom. He is still a black man. A black man doesn't have to turn in his race card if he doesn't dip into the same old '*****, ho' joke book.

His style of joke writing was 'Black' to DL, but didn't cater to the horrible stereotypes that the first comedy was pandering to.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I thought the tour Tom gave his parents was a little over the top. Was he a tour guide there before being hired as a performer? Who knows that much intricate history about the place they work?

Other than that, I really liked the episode and the various stories. I loved the girl that kept asking Matt what it meant to be the writer of the show.

Isn't it ironic that Matt/Simon listened to a comedian bomb and thought he was brilliant? Sounds about like many of the sketches the show has shown so far. High-concept comedy that goes over most people's heads, meaning that the mainstream audience (like the crowd in the club) think it's boring.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> Isn't it ironic that Matt/Simon listened to a comedian bomb and thought he was brilliant? Sounds about like many of the sketches the show has shown so far. High-concept comedy that goes over most people's heads, meaning that the mainstream audience (like the crowd in the club) think it's boring.


I don't know that Matt thought it was brilliant. Although he clearly thought it had promise and might well be nurtured into something brilliant (or at least quite good). And even with the bombing, a lot of it appeared to be the presentation rather than just the material.

But hey, they told us that Comedia Del Arte ran long because people unexpectedly laughed.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't think either Matt or Simon thought he was "brilliant" either. Simon said it was the worst standup routine he'd ever seen.

They thought his _material_ showed he had some promise as a writer, although he needed guidance and discipline. I don't think either of them thinks he has potential as a performer, at least not yet.


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

Domandred said:


> I loved the fake history of the studio, all the entire Eli scenes, Tom's parents (who in the hell hasn't heard of Who's on First though, I think that was a bit of a stretch). All around top notch.


The story of the parents was a bit heavy handed but probably in line with what Hollywood thinks of Middle America.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TIVOSciolist said:


> The story of the parents was a bit heavy handed but probably in line with what Hollywood thinks of Middle America.


You don't know that.

Those of us who know Sorkin's own history can tell you which scenes are definitely 'write what you know' out of Sorkin's own life.

The young up-and-coming playwright, trying to break into TV? Sorkin's been there.

As others have mentioned, Harriet may have been based, in part, on Kristin Chenoweth.

I would be very surprised if there were no one in the writers' room or cast who had a parent who did not understand why they had gone into the business rather than having a 'real' job. I imagine most people in Hollywood are at least familiar with people who have working-class parents who freak when their kids want to go into the performing arts.

I didn't see it as a slam at Middle America, I saw it as Tom's inability to connect with his dad. He takes offense at stuff his parents say and says things that are disrespectful to them because he is frustrated, but that doesn't mean he understands how his comments sound to them (as Simon clearly does).

Suppose Tom was busy and someone else was showing them around the studio -- when Tom's mother referred to the work as 'skits', someone not emotionally involved with them might have had more patience and explained "We call them 'sketches', Mrs. X." without getting bent out of shape about it.

The performances were probably overplayed, and could have been throttled back a little, but on the whole, they were just a part of the 'nobody appreciates what writers do' theme night.

And THAT is a slam at Hollywood itself.

Jan


----------



## EchoBravo (Apr 20, 2002)

> I didn't get that feeling. Just because he isn't 'angry black man' doesn't make him an Uncle Tom. He is still a black man. A black man doesn't have to turn in his race card if he doesn't dip into the same old '*****, ho' joke book.


Thanks for saving me the effort of trying to say that in a way that made sense. I guess "Middle America" saw that the guy is smart and had smart material and thought that somehow made him less Black.



> The story of the parents was a bit heavy handed but probably in line with what Hollywood thinks of Middle America.


Not just Hollywood. I'm nowhere near Hollywood and have never been there. I thought that was the best storyline in the episode and very realistic. One of my best friends is a morning radio DJ (Ugh! ClearChannel, no less) and his dad is retired from 30+ years in a steel mill. Do you think they can relate on every level? It's not just a Hollywood perspective thing. It's more generational than that.

As for the kid knowing everything about the studio's history, perhaps it was somewhat over the top, but he has a passion for his gig and it's not completely unbelievable that he'd be well-versed in the building's historic standing.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> Isn't it ironic that Matt/Simon listened to a comedian bomb and thought he was brilliant? Sounds about like many of the sketches the show has shown so far. High-concept comedy that goes over most people's heads, meaning that the mainstream audience (like the crowd in the club) think it's boring.


No, the point was, Simon wanted someone in the writers' room who could relate to his life experience. So they went hunting for a 'black comedian', struck out at first, and discovered instead a guy whose own personal experience resonated with Simon's a lot better.

If a black comic does humor based on black stereotypes, then I am going to find it boring. If a black comic does humor based on his/her own life experience, even though a lot of that experience is foreign to me, at first I am going to laugh at the parts which are familar to me, and if I like the comic, I am eventually going to laugh at everything, even the stuff which is poking fun at me.

The secret of good comedy is observation and reporting stuff which is true. If you are doing stuff based on stereotypes, you are coasting. You are not observing what individual people actually do.

I don't think this has anything to do with low comedy vs. high-concept comedy. I think it has to do with good comedy vs. bad comedy.

Note how those of us who don't have kids found the sketch "Jenny Doesn't Have a Baby" much funnier than a lot of the rest of you. That's because it resonated with our own life experience. Been there, heard that.

Jan


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

On the plus side, the numbers last nite were a little better for S60, though it continues to get beaten badly by CSI Miami:


> "CSI: Miami" grabbed the night's biggest audience at 10 p.m. with an 11.4/18. Its rating beat the combined total of NBC's "Studio 60," 5.1/8, and ABC's "What About Brian," 4.4/7.


(Numbers from Zap2it.com)


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Domandred said:


> Tom's parents (who in the hell hasn't heard of Who's on First though, I think that was a bit of a stretch).


Even more, who manages to produce a RECORD of Who's On First without ever leaving his parents' side. This is the same building that could only find an exploding baseball or an orange painted like one ...

I liked the bombing comedian's material. "No one told us we could use GEOMETRY!"


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

As far as the bombing comedian goes I more had the feeling that Matt and Simon thought his material was good (not great, but good), but the guy wasn't a standup comedian. In other words he was a writer, not a deliverer. They were looking for a writer afterall and not another cast member to put in front of the camera.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Domandred said:


> As far as the bombing comedian goes I more had the feeling that Matt and Simon thought his material was good (not great, but good), but the guy wasn't a standup comedian. In other words he was a writer, not a deliverer. They were looking for a writer afterall and not another cast member to put in front of the camera.


I agree with that. I just found it ironic (in light of the threads for the previous episodes of this show) that the material they thought had promise for their show was the stuff that was bombing in the club. Sure it was because of the delivery, but I'm just making an observation about the type of comedy.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

MitchO said:


> Even more, who manages to produce a RECORD of Who's On First without ever leaving his parents' side.


It was a 78 RPM record to boot. I could imagine the building having a souvenir shop that sells CDs and/or DVDs of the skit (  ), given the history they made up for it.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Note how those of us who don't have kids found the sketch "Jenny Doesn't Have a Baby" much funnier than a lot of the rest of you. That's because it resonated with our own life experience. Been there, heard that.


I never actually mentioned this in last week's thread, but I thought the "Jenny Doesn't Have a Baby" sketch was hysterical - in concept at least - and I _have_ kids.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

bdowell said:


> On the plus side, the numbers last nite were a little better for S60, though it continues to get beaten badly by CSI Miami:
> 
> (Numbers from Zap2it.com)


Well, it's in an idiotic time slot. Why waste this in graveyard against the king of form over substance.

Needs to be someplace more friendly. e.g. Anytime Tuesday before 10.


----------



## jgerry (Aug 29, 2001)

A few things:

This show is NEVER -- I repeat, NEVER -- going to beat out CSI Miami in its time slot. I wish it would, because I watch CSI Miami and think it's a terrible show, but oh, it looks so pretty in High-Def. I would think that NBC, you know, being a huge TV network, and me just being some idiot on the Tivo forum, would know this and not expect Studio 60 to crush CSI Miami in the ratings.

I thought this episode was a little too spot-on, a little too predictable maybe? And I even missed the first 15 minutes (stupid Comcast DVR!!!). The old guy writer, the thing with Jordan and the baseball player giving her his number on the baseball, the black comic / stereotype thing... All very obvious. 

Best part of this episode -- Nate Corddry was really great. Who knew he could seriously act?? I also enjoyed Matt Perry trying to explain what writing the show meant. Very funny.


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

bdowell said:


> On the plus side, the numbers last nite were a little better for S60, though it continues to get beaten badly by CSI Miami:


This is true, but is is now beating "What About Brian" again. So we got that going for us .

Seriously though, we're starting to see the numbers settle for the season. I still believe that Heros - as awesome as it is - is not a compatible lead-in to this show. But we'll see if Friday Night Lights fares any better in the slot next week.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

devdogaz said:


> Other than that, I really liked the episode and the various stories. I loved the girl that kept asking Matt what it meant to be the writer of the show.


I thought it funny that he wasn't quite capable of telling her in more basic terms:

"Those people you saw on the show? I told them what to say"


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Agent86 said:


> This is true, but is is now beating "What About Brian" again. So we got that going for us .
> 
> Seriously though, we're starting to see the numbers settle for the season. I still believe that Heros - as awesome as it is - is not a compatible lead-in to this show. But we'll see if Friday Night Lights fares any better in the slot next week.


I don't disagree at all about Heroes not being a good (or compatible) lead-in for S60. Heroes is a great show, but it's broadest appeal is to a different type of audience entirely.

In fact, I'd say that the audience for Heroes is probably more compatible as an audience for CSI: Miami than it is for S60. That's just my opinion, but I'd think those two shows would be a more compatible match for most viewers than would Heroes and S60.

I'm a bit intriqued at the thought that NBC might put Friday Night Lights into the post Heroes time slot and find another time for S60. I'd love it if they did that, especially if S60 went into the 8pm time slot on Tuesdays. Though I record other content at that time, I'd prioritize S60 over most other choices that would be available then (at least for me).


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

MitchO said:


> Even more, who manages to produce a RECORD of Who's On First without ever leaving his parents' side. This is the same building that could only find an exploding baseball or an orange painted like one ...
> 
> I liked the bombing comedian's material. "No one told us we could use GEOMETRY!"


I'd imagined that the record was up on the wall somewhere as an exhibit: "Recorded Live here in 1940" or something similar. If they were in Cooperstown he could have stolen a gold record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_on_first#History


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

It might even have been his own personal copy.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

MitchO said:


> Even more, who manages to produce a RECORD of Who's On First without ever leaving his parents' side.


Send one of the PAs or gophers out to one of the stores that still have vinyl. If Amoeba Music didn't have it, surely someone else would.

<shrug>

But I also like what Graymalkin said -- what's to say it isn't Tom's own personal copy? He might have had it in his dressing room as a decoration, like the record covers on the wall of my local deli.

It would be easy to ask one of the PAs or props people to slip into his dressing room and take the LP out of the frame.

Jan


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> Send one of the PAs or gophers out to one of the stores that still have vinyl. If Amoeba Music didn't have it, surely someone else would.
> 
> <shrug>
> 
> Jan


At 11:00 on a Friday night? Something tells me that's not going to be a super easy record to find, and at that time it would be nearly impossible.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> It might even have been his own personal copy.


His personal copy is on vinyl?!?!  Doubtful. Given the way his parents were completely lost, I don't see how he could have gotten away from them to send an intern (what time is the wrap party, anyway) or steal it off a wall.

-shrug- It's a pretty minor point.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_on_first#History

That's better! (fixing Idearat's post)

Jan


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

devdogaz said:


> At 11:00 on a Friday night? Something tells me that's not going to be a super easy record to find, and at that time it would be nearly impossible.


Even though I find this to be a really petty argument, Tower Records on Sunset is open until midnight.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_on_first#History
> 
> That's better! (fixing Idearat's post)


The most relevant part for this episode's theme is:
"...*producer* John Grant, working with Abbott and Costello, asked Will Glickman, a *staff writer* on The Kate Smith Hour radio show, to sharpen and amplify the Baseball Routine for performance on the show."


----------



## calitivo (Dec 6, 2002)

balboa dave said:


> Even though I find this to be a really petty argument, Tower Records on Sunset is open until midnight.


Not for long


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

EchoBravo said:


> I thought that was the best storyline in the episode and very realistic. One of my best friends is a morning radio DJ (Ugh! ClearChannel, no less) and his dad is retired from 30+ years in a steel mill. Do you think they can relate on every level? It's not just a Hollywood perspective thing. It's more generational than that.


This storyline hit home for me as well. As the first person in my family to graduate from college - much less go on to get a graduate degree - I've experienced more than my share of frustrations with not being able to relate well with some of the people in my family. The frustration, the occasional slight embarassment, the hostility from the other side - been there, done that.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

balboa dave said:


> Even though I find this to be a really petty argument, Tower Records on Sunset is open until midnight.


Now if we really wanted to be pedantic, we could argue over which store is closer to Studio 60, Tower (8800 block) or Amoeba (6400 block).



Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> This storyline hit home for me as well. As the first person in my family to graduate from college - much less go on to get a graduate degree - I've experienced more than my share of frustrations with not being able to relate well with some of the people in my family. The frustration, the occasional slight embarassment, the hostility from the other side - been there, done that.


You betcha!

Beautiful, beautiful performance by Nate -- showing how some people can't help but fall back into the old interaction they had with their parents when they were teenagers, no matter how far away they have moved from that place and time.

There are all sorts of things going on in all the scenes with Tom and his parents. Tom's dad seems like a proud guy -- I don't think he could cope very well with the fact that Tom could buy his house four times over. It could be that his refusal to acknowledge it and keep on asking Tom if he needs any money is just stubborn pride.

Or it could be that when his dad asks "do you need any money" he isn't really talking about money, he's asking if Tom is okay -- just like the farm boy in _The Princess Bride_, when he says "as you wish", is really sending another message.

Be careful not to miss the exchange with Tom and his mother as she gets into the 
car, where we find out that Tom sent body armor to his little brother's unit in Iraq, and that Tom is going to keep on sending it, as he finds out which units need it the most. I bet that would be a real sore point with Tom's father, that Tom could afford such a thing and he couldn't, and that it is necessary for Tom to do that at all.

Good stuff.

Jan


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> Now if we really wanted to be pedantic, we could argue over which store is closer to Studio 60, Tower (8800 block) or Amoeba (6400 block).


In the pilot, they showed an establishing shot with a street sign showing Studio 60 as being in the 7100 block...

...but in this episode, they suggested that the West Hollywood P.D. would be coming for Eli Wallach. The 7100 block is squarely in LAPD territory, but perhaps the canon has changed since the pilot and they're now claiming that Studio 60 actually is located on the Sunset Strip (the city of West Hollywood claims that "Sunset Strip" refers solely to the portion of Sunset Blvd. within their city limits). However, there is no such thing as the West Hollywood P.D. -- the city doesn't have its own police department, they contract with the county sheriff's department for police protection within their boundaries.

At any rate, I would not expect either Amoeba or Tower to have a 78 RPM recording of "Who's on First?" in stock.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Tom's dad seems like a proud guy -- I don't think he could cope very well with the fact that Tom could buy his house four times over. It could be that his refusal to acknowledge it and keep on asking Tom if he needs any money is just stubborn pride.


Parent's are supposed to be proud when their offspring do better than they did, I think the issue is that he gets paid so much for working on a TV show. "Your dad works for living, don't be an ass."

Buying his dad's house 4 times over would cost Tom $600,000.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

trainman said:


> In the pilot, they showed an establishing shot with a street sign showing Studio 60 as being in the 7100 block...
> 
> ...but in this episode, they suggested that the West Hollywood P.D. would be coming for Eli Wallach. The 7100 block is squarely in LAPD territory, but perhaps the canon has changed since the pilot and they're now claiming that Studio 60 actually is located on the Sunset Strip (the city of West Hollywood claims that "Sunset Strip" refers solely to the portion of Sunset Blvd. within their city limits). However, there is no such thing as the West Hollywood P.D. -- the city doesn't have its own police department, they contract with the county sheriff's department for police protection within their boundaries.
> 
> At any rate, I would not expect either Amoeba or Tower to have a 78 RPM recording of "Who's on First?" in stock.


Oh, I completely agree. It makes the most sense to the story if the record was from his personal collection.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

I really regret even mentioning the record now.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> I thought the tour Tom gave his parents was a little over the top. Was he a tour guide there before being hired as a performer? Who knows that much intricate history about the place they work?


Apple was founded in 1976 by Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs.. Wozniak offered his computer to HP, his previous employer, and they didn't want to sell it....

want me to go on?

Sure, I don't know about the building I'm in now (though there at least used to be some info at the architect's site talking about an in site swimming pool and gym, which we definitely don't have).. but I do know an awful lot of the company's history, even before I worked here.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Since people were getting nitpicky on silly little details, I was going to mention something. But Jim stole my thunder. There is no West Hollywood police. It's L.A. County Sheriff that serves the city of West Hollywood. 

Anyway, I'm still watching. It's not my top show of the season. I don't get totally pumped up to see it like I do with Heroes. But I am still enjoying this show.

Lauren Grahm is still hot. I wonder how many cameos we will get for the guest hosts and musical acts.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

MitchO said:


> Even more, who manages to produce a RECORD of Who's On First without ever leaving his parents' side. This is the same building that could only find an exploding baseball or an orange painted like one ..."





vman41 said:


> It was a 78 RPM record to boot. I could imagine the building having a souvenir shop that sells CDs and/or DVDs of the skit (  ), given the history they made up for it.


But he took the 78 out of its protective sleeve - and KEPT the sleeve! His parents are driving to Yosemite with a 78 RPM record bouncing all over the mini-van! Oh, the horror!


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

drew2k said:


> But he took the 78 out of its protective sleeve - and KEPT the sleeve! His parents are driving to Yosemite with a 78 RPM record bouncing all over the mini-van! Oh, the horror!


Just watched it again (whole episode not just for the record) and might shed a little light on the entire record thing.

He pulled the record out of a brown paper bag and the record itself was in a clear plastic sleeve. This tells me he sent someone out to get it (he couldn't have gone himself) and they found a copy at probably a store that sells used vinyl that replaces missing covers with clear plastic protectors. Good luck on both at midnight in Hollywood.

Yikes there has to be little wrong with this show if the thread has to resolve to nitpicking Who's on First and the existance or non-existance of a Vinyl recording of it available at midnight in Hollywood, 78rpm speed.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Domandred said:


> Yikes there has to be little wrong with this show if the thread has to resolve to nitpicking Who's on First and the existance or non-existance of a Vinyl recording of it available at midnight in Hollywood, 78rpm speed.


There is nothing wrong with the show. Go read the Heroes threads. You see the same thing.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Nitpicking is FUN!


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

Great show, great episode. Jordan trying to make friends was funny. "Calm down."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> Nitpicking is FUN!


Well, only under certain circumstances...


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Domandred said:


> As far as the bombing comedian goes I more had the feeling that Matt and Simon thought his material was good (not great, but good), but the guy wasn't a standup comedian. In other words he was a writer, not a deliverer. They were looking for a writer afterall and not another cast member to put in front of the camera.


And Matt even made this point talking to the "what does the head writer do, exactly" chick.

I also cringed at the thought of them taking an old 78 back in the old minivan.
As far as knowing all about the history of the theater. In the universe this show exists, this is supposed to be the flagship show for the NBS network so it is not that surprising that a person with interests in history and was probably a wannabe comedy writer for a while would know all that stuff.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

I am surprised by how different this episode was. Yet, it seemed to fit perfectly. Great writing on this show. Lets just hope this isn't one of the NBC shows that gets axed.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Lee L said:


> And Matt even made this point talking to the "what does the head writer do, exactly" chick.
> 
> I also cringed at the thought of them taking an old 78 back in the old minivan.
> As far as knowing all about the history of the theater. In the universe this show exists, this is supposed to be the flagship show for the NBS network so it is not that surprising that a person with interests in history and was probably a wannabe comedy writer for a while would know all that stuff.


And as pointed out above, Tom has a kind of uncomfortable relationship with his parents. I could totally believe he spent some time studying up on the specifics of the building's history so he could 
1) try to gloss over any awkward moments by acting as tour guide, and 
2) trying to impress upon his parents that he is part of a long and important tradition.

The fact that he reverted totally to tour guide minutes after meeting his parents would just be due to his general discomfort.


----------



## ruexp67 (Jan 16, 2002)

I know a good deal of history about my company and the building I work in. In fact I know enough about the archeticture of Chicago to give a pretty solid tour. If the guy wanted to be a comedy writer for so long, he WOULD know that history.

I found myself REALLY amused by the commends Jack was making about the show about the UN. I can only imagine the same comments about a show that takes place in the West Wing of the White House. 

Jordan was funny. "No, call me Jor, no, Miss. McDiere is good."  I don't think they are setting her up to be an alchoholic.



Spoiler



She is pregnant IRL and the are planning to write that into the show



Lauren Graham is HAWT. We needed more of that cameo. 

The whole thing with Matt and the girls was funny from beginning to end: 
"How long ago did they TAKE the SATs?" 
"Don't be a snob." 
"OK.  "

"Do you know..."
"HE WORKS FOR ME!"

"Trinket"
"Tresure"
"Oh yeah, right."

Good stuff.

S60 is not the best show on TV, but I truely enjoy it. (But then I LOVED Sports Night and we all know how THAT turned out.  )


----------



## Frank_M (Sep 9, 2001)

I love this show.

And I'm sure at some point I'm going to shout "Tarps over everything!" in the face of an impending crisis, and no one will get what I mean.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Why are people obsessing over the record? He gave his parents a tour, and one of the most famous things to come out of the building was "Who's On First." He probably bought the record off of ebay with the intention of giving to them as a souvenier. It kind of backfired when he found out they didn't know "Who's On First."


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

I absolutely love this show. I never bothered commenting on it here as I thought the threads would be like the Lost threads... 20 pages long and impossible to wade through by the time I got around to watching the episode. Then a friend casually drops this weekend that Studio 60 is on the chopping block. Surely, she's kidding, I thought. Guess not...

It must be a Sorkin thing. I LOVED Sports Night and try to turn as many folks onto it as I can. I love his style and I absolutely LOVE the dialog. The things his characters say are things I could see myself saying - and that's certaintly not true about a lot of television.

In this particular episode, I thought the scenes in the comedy club were superb, as were the scenes with the old man. I loved the way Cal (Timmothy Bushfield) thanked the old man for winning WWII. In general, I'm a huge fan of Bushfield as an actor. I'm also a big fan of Bradley Whitford. I thought for sure I would hate DL Hughley, but that hasn't been the case at all.

I failed to realized that being put up against CSI:Shreveport would be a bad time slot. Maybe they should switch it so it runs up against Law And Order : Meter Maids. If this show goes down it will join Sports Night and Arrested Development as my biggest disappointments in the American TV-Watching Public.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Domandred said:


> Good luck on both at midnight in Hollywood.


Why is everyone saying this wrap party is hapenning at midnight? They do the show live for the east coast audience from 11:30 to 1. That's 8:30-10:00 in LA.

I assume that he had someone go down to some NBS (or Studio 60) archive and pull a 78 out of their warehouse.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

If this show gets canned early, wouldn't it be kind of ironic that this would be the scene that it's best known for:


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

I just wanted to say that I hated the Eli story line. What the hell was the point?

Also, I saw the whole "this black comedian will bomb but they will, via serendipity, find another good black comedian" thing coming a mile away. More than a mile. And do we really need another character on this show?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> Apple was founded in 1976 by Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs.. Wozniak offered his computer to HP, his previous employer, and they didn't want to sell it....
> 
> want me to go on?


I think the fact that Danny and Matt would sit down and want to listen to old stories about that Studio and show business for "3 or 4 hours" at midnight on a Friday night, shows there is a pretty large respect for the history of that studio, for comedy and show business there. So I suspect that it runs through a lot of the people who have been around there for a while. In that setting it does not seem odd he would have the information for the tour. Obviously it is also a way to expand and explain the characters. Right now most of the characters are pretty narrow and flat. Having him know all that history is part of his character development.

(I am agreeing with you, but did not want to dig back to the original quote).

I found the pacing different for this episode and good in a different way. The other shows were, seemingly, much more frantic. As someone else mentioned they were all based on the 12th hour right before and during the show. This episode just had a different face from the others.


----------



## KnitBunny (Dec 14, 2004)

Jonathan_S said:


> And as pointed out above, Tom has a kind of uncomfortable relationship with his parents. I could totally believe he spent some time studying up on the specifics of the building's history so he could
> 1) try to gloss over any awkward moments by acting as tour guide, and
> 2) trying to impress upon his parents that he is part of a long and important tradition.
> 
> The fact that he reverted totally to tour guide minutes after meeting his parents would just be due to his general discomfort.


Exactly. Tom wants to impress his parents. He knows they don't respect or understand what he does or why it's important, and is trying to find something they can connect to.

The approach of "keep moving, keep talking" so we don't have to have a real conversation rings true to me. What was Tom going to do, have drinks with his parents at the wrap party?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I thught this was easily the best show of the series so far. Even though it was riddled with sentimentalism and cliche, it was executed very well and proved to me that the show could survive without the stupid love story. DL Hughley is great. They just have to find a DL for the 7pm time slot and mondays will be DL night since Heroes has a character named DL!

The UN show and Jack seemed to clearly be a statement about the struggles of getting west wing on the air..??


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

7thton said:


> I just wanted to say that I hated the Eli story line. What the hell was the point?


You didn't get the point of why that subplot was in the story line?

Most shows on TV don't weave together all the different plots as well as this episode did. I was expecting people to complain that it was too heavy-handed (and as you can see, some already have).

The one niggly flaw in the episode for me is that the pitcher's name in "Who's on First" is 'Tomorrow'. Given what else happens in the episode, it would have been sweet if the pitcher was named 'Today' (but not 'Tomorrow'). 

P.S. to TAsunder: guess you missed the tie-in to the 'stupid love story'. 

Jan


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> The one niggly flaw in the episode for me is that the pitcher's name in "Who's on First" is 'Tomorrow'. Given what else happens in the episode, it would have been sweet if the pitcher was named 'Today' (but not 'Tomorrow').


One version of "Who's on first" I heard gave ethnicities to the players to explain their names. Hu was a Chinaman, Watt was a Scot, and Idanno was Italian. The Japanese pitcher as named Tamara.


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

Ok, am I the only one that did not get the old man's Hollywood Top 10 anagram. Could someone please enlighten me.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

RickyL said:


> Ok, am I the only one that did not get the old man's Hollywood Top 10 anagram. Could someone please enlighten me.


Anagram? It wasn't an anagram exactly. The names he mentioned were sort of "mashups" of the Hollywood 10. He mentioned "Cole Lardner" and "Scott Trumbo." Whereas the real Hollywood 10 were named Lester Cole, Ring Lardner, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, etc.

ETA: More about the Hollywood 10.


----------



## aforkosh (Apr 20, 2003)

RickyL said:


> Ok, am I the only one that did not get the old man's Hollywood Top 10 anagram. Could someone please enlighten me.


He was asked for a name and he gave them names. It's a bit of an abstract joke.


----------



## BobB (Aug 26, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> Anagram? It wasn't an anagram exactly. The names he mentioned were sort of "mashups" of the Hollywood 10. He mentioned "Cole Lardner" and "Scott Trumbo." Whereas the real Hollywood 10 were named Lester Cole, Ring Lardner, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, etc.
> 
> ETA: More about the Hollywood 10.


Wait a sec - the poster you're replying to says "Hollywood Top 10," is it possible he is simply missing the Hollywood 10 reference? If so, here's the scoop (and apologies to the 99% of you who know this): the Hollywood 10 were a group of top Hollywood writers who were blacklisted (i.e., lost their jobs and were banned from working in the industry) for refusing to "name names" of supposed Communists for Sen. Joe McCarthy's House Unamerican Activities Committee. It's a major ugliness in the history of Hollywood.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

ruexp67 said:


> The whole thing with Matt and the girls was funny from beginning to end:
> "How long ago did they TAKE the SATs?"
> "Don't be a snob."
> "OK.  "
> ...


Hasit been mentioned yet that at least one of the three girls is a model on Deal or No Deal? (The one with the big hair ...)


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

Magnolia88 said:


> Anagram? It wasn't an anagram exactly. The names he mentioned were sort of "mashups" of the Hollywood 10. He mentioned "Cole Lardner" and "Scott Trumbo." Whereas the real Hollywood 10 were named Lester Cole, Ring Lardner, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, etc.
> 
> ETA: More about the Hollywood 10.


Thanks... so it was an psuedo-anagram of names not letters... I thinking letters and not getting very far with names like Cole.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Okay.

I haven't bought into this show. Until this episode.

I'll watch through ten of the mediocre shows to catch one like this one. It was EXCELLENT.

(Except the part where they portrayed the midwesterners as idiots. That part I didn't enjoy so much.)


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Magister said:


> I am surprised by how different this episode was. Yet, it seemed to fit perfectly. Great writing on this show. Lets just hope this isn't one of the NBC shows that gets axed.


I liked it because it wasn't about the fictional "Studio 60" show. It was about the people that make "Studio 60". Also, as someone else pointed out, it was slower paced because it took place AFTER the fictional "Studio 60" had wrapped for the night. There was no ticking clock for the characters to contend with.

I hope we get more episodes like this!



YCantAngieRead said:


> ...(Except the part where they portrayed the midwesterners as idiots. That part I didn't enjoy so much.)


They weren't midwesterners. They were Buckeyes! That's how they really are in Ohio!

Relax all you Buckeyes, just kidding! Just a little Hoosier humor. I am only about 45 minutes from Ohio myself.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

BobB said:


> It's a major ugliness in the history of Hollywood.


I wouldn't stop at hollywood


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MitchO said:


> His personal copy is on vinyl?!?!  Doubtful. Given the way his parents were completely lost, I don't see how he could have gotten away from them to send an intern (what time is the wrap party, anyway) or steal it off a wall.
> 
> -shrug- It's a pretty minor point.


I assumed it was his own copy. The guy was obviously a history of comedy and arts wonk and it would not at all be out of character for him to have a 78 rpm version of the skit, er, sketch.

And it would be more meaningful for him to give his own. (And he couldn't give his father a CD or DVD, the man doesn't have a player as clearly stated.)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> (Except the part where they portrayed the midwesterners as idiots. That part I didn't enjoy so much.)


I hope you are kidding. They portrayed TWO PEOPLE as being out of touch with the mainstream. Not idiots and not "midwesterners" but TWO PEOPLE.

Are we that touchy?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

bdowell said:


> The D.L. Hughley story line about looking for more diversity in the writers room was good too, though the end result was that he and Matt found someone that would just be considered a Carlton (Fresh Prince)/Uncle Tom comedian.


Huh?

They liked him because he said something fresh about the Black experience. His joke about comparing Black slaves to Jewish slaves was intended to be high-minded, a new take and something that a white guy wouldn't get away with writing.

It was the right solution. It was what DL's character wanted. A voice of the Black man that was not stereotypical or racist.

Damn. He spelled it out when convincing the other guy to go. He said that as a white (liberal) that the stuff he wanted wouldn't be understood or wouldn't be written (because of guilt). He wanted a new voice.

They found one. (I thought the take was good; the execution and wording of the material was horrible.)


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I assumed it was his own copy. The guy was obviously a history of comedy and arts wonk and it would not at all be out of character for him to have a 78 rpm version of the skit, er, sketch.
> 
> And it would be more meaningful for him to give his own. (And he couldn't give his father a CD or DVD, the man doesn't have a player as clearly stated.)


That minivan looked new enough to have a cassette player in it. I'd imagine that if he wanted his parents to hear Who's On First, the long drive to Yosemite might be a good time for it. The old 78 RPM album is a nice sentimental touch, but if the point was to get him to listen to it, a cassette might have done the job better.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I think if you had no idea who the "Hollywood 10" were or about the blacklisting, you missed a huge part of the episode. I'll admit not picking up on it the first time through myself, but I quickly googled for it and educated myself. Definitely a very interesting (and as mentioned, ugly) part in Hollywood history.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

aindik said:


> That minivan looked new enough to have a cassette player in it. I'd imagine that if he wanted his parents to hear Who's On First, the long drive to Yosemite might be a good time for it. The old 78 RPM album is a nice sentimental touch, but if the point was to get him to listen to it, a cassette might have done the job better.


At this point, LP's are probably more available than tapes.... and if this was indeed his personal copy, it was easy to grab it from his (desk? area? locker?) and give it to his parents.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So here's a question about racial comedy. Matt made a racial joke to Simon (about the "black" drinks) and Simon said that Matt's liberal guilt would never allow him to write something like this into the show. So what is going to make it OK if it's written by a black guy? Do viewers really know who writes what sketches? Does it matter? If Matt, as head writer, perceives something to be mildly racist, is he going to allow it to go on the air just because it was written by a black guy? Would he turn down the same sketch if it came from Ricky/Ron?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aindik said:


> That minivan looked new enough to have a cassette player in it. I'd imagine that if he wanted his parents to hear Who's On First, the long drive to Yosemite might be a good time for it. The old 78 RPM album is a nice sentimental touch, but if the point was to get him to listen to it, a cassette might have done the job better.


Let us all assume we know the guy's parents better than he does.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Let us all assume we know the guy's parents better than he does.


I'm not criticizing the character. I'm criticizing the writing.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> So here's a question about racial comedy. Matt made a racial joke to Simon (about the "black" drinks) and Simon said that Matt's liberal guilt would never allow him to write something like this into the show. So what is going to make it OK if it's written by a black guy? Do viewers really know who writes what sketches? Does it matter? If Matt, as head writer, perceives something to be mildly racist, is he going to allow it to go on the air just because it was written by a black guy? Would he turn down the same sketch if it came from Ricky/Ron?


Well, first of all, that's the difference between the first and second comedian - the first guy was the one telling "black jokes." The second guy was telling jokes from his perspective, which happened to be the perspective of growing up black in a poor part of town. If this guy starts telling "black jokes," you're right, Matt's not gonna let it go on air, and that's not what he was hired to do.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

aindik said:


> That minivan looked new enough to have a cassette player in it. I'd imagine that if he wanted his parents to hear Who's On First, the long drive to Yosemite might be a good time for it. The old 78 RPM album is a nice sentimental touch, but if the point was to get him to listen to it, a cassette might have done the job better.


That was an 1984-1987 Chrysler/Dodge minivan. Standard equipment at that point was an AM/FM radio only. The casette player was a premium upgrade.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> So here's a question about racial comedy. Matt made a racial joke to Simon (about the "black" drinks) and Simon said that Matt's liberal guilt would never allow him to write something like this into the show. So what is going to make it OK if it's written by a black guy? Do viewers really know who writes what sketches? Does it matter? If Matt, as head writer, perceives something to be mildly racist, is he going to allow it to go on the air just because it was written by a black guy? Would he turn down the same sketch if it came from Ricky/Ron?


In addition to what LoadStar already wrote, Simon said Matt's liberal guilt wouldn't let him WRITE it into the show - not that Matt's liberal guilt wouldn't let him air it or that Matt was afraid of the flack he'd take from the american public. Basically, Matt's liberal guilt could be asuaged if the idea came from a black writer on staff that he respected, but Matt doesn't have the background to be comfortable enough going with it himself.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Well, first of all, that's the difference between the first and second comedian - the first guy was the one telling "black jokes." The second guy was telling jokes from his perspective, which happened to be the perspective of growing up black in a poor part of town. If this guy starts telling "black jokes," you're right, Matt's not gonna let it go on air, and that's not what he was hired to do.





DVDerek said:


> In addition to what LoadStar already wrote, Simon said Matt's liberal guilt wouldn't let him WRITE it into the show - not that Matt's liberal guilt wouldn't let him air it or that Matt was afraid of the flack he'd take from the american public. Basically, Matt's liberal guilt could be asuaged if the idea came from a black writer on staff that he respected, but Matt doesn't have the background to be comfortable enough going with it himself.


See, I'm not sure about this. The general public doesn't know who writes any particular sketch, so it all falls back to Matt. If there's something in there that might be construed as mildly racist, but was written by the new black writer, how does that change the fact that it's still possibly offensive? Do those jokes have to be performed by a black performer, like Simon, in order for them to be considered OK?


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I hope you are kidding. They portrayed TWO PEOPLE as being out of touch with the mainstream. Not idiots and not "midwesterners" but TWO PEOPLE.
> 
> Are we that touchy?


Sure. This hasn't been the greatest year for smart midwesterners. 

I was hoping that it'd come off as two people just out of it, not two hayseeds. That just gets old.


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> See, I'm not sure about this. The general public doesn't know who writes any particular sketch, so it all falls back to Matt. If there's something in there that might be construed as mildly racist, but was written by the new black writer, how does that change the fact that it's still possibly offensive? Do those jokes have to be performed by a black performer, like Simon, in order for them to be considered OK?


You're still not getting my point. Matt doesn't care that a percentage of people might construe a joke as racist -- just as he doesn't care about pissing off the right-wing bible thumpers too blind to see satire. Simon's point to Matt was that he couldn't justify those jokes to his liberal conscious.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Sure. This hasn't been the greatest year for smart midwesterners.


To be fair to the Midwest...in a previous episode they mentioned the high number of complaints NBS's Terre Haute affiliate had gotten for dropping "Studio 60" locally as a result of the "Crazy Christians" sketch. So maybe it _is_ just Buckeyes!


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Sure. This hasn't been the greatest year for smart midwesterners.
> 
> I was hoping that it'd come off as two people just out of it, not two hayseeds. That just gets old.


I just think you are being overly sensitive. I grew up in the midwest, but have lived in Texas for 20 plus years. I think Texas gets as bad a wrap from traditional media and entertainment as anyone, but I don't take it personally.

Partially because the stereotypes are often based in a significant amount of truth. Sure not everyone in the Mid-West might be like those parents, but you can't tell me there are not 10's or 100s of thousands of mothers just like that throughout the Midwest, and the same goes for the Father. Conservative, stuck in his ways, narrow minded, it is not like they painted him with horns on his head eating baby puppies.

Do I get upset when tv portrays a texan as some hayseed stickkicker who is dumb as rocks? No. For one I know everyone is not like that here, and two, I know plenty of people who are like that, so it is amusing. Just because you don't fit into the stereotype of the Midwestern and maybe I don't fit into the stereotype of a Texan does not make them less useful conventions for a network tv show.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I hope you are kidding. They portrayed TWO PEOPLE as being out of touch with the mainstream. Not idiots and not "midwesterners" but TWO PEOPLE.


Part of that portrayal was the comment that living in Columbus Ohio made them 'barely alive', implying that everyone in that area was out of the mainstream.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

I just don't get why I should care about Eli. OK, he was a writer for one of the radio shows that was recorded at 60 before he was blacklisted. OK, so what? Is that supposed to give me some insight toward the current Studio 60 show...or the current writers?



murgatroyd said:


> You didn't get the point of why that subplot was in the story line?
> 
> Most shows on TV don't weave together all the different plots as well as this episode did. I was expecting people to complain that it was too heavy-handed (and as you can see, some already have).
> 
> ...


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

7thton said:


> I just don't get why I should care about Eli. OK, he was a writer for one of the radio shows that was recorded at 60 before he was blacklisted. OK, so what? Is that supposed to give me some insight toward the current Studio 60 show...or the current writers?


I think that Matt and Danny felt empathy for a guy who was in a hostile environment for people speaking their minds against what they perceive to be closemindedness from above (Eli: McCarthy commission, Matt and Danny: Corporate America). Plus they clearly have respect for the history of television, and "not much is known" about that time.

I don't know if I really buy "Let's sit down and listen to an old man go on and on for three or four hours", but I can at least see the point, writing wise.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

For Matt and Danny, this was like a hardcore baseball fan being able to sit down and listen to an old Red Sox player talk about Ted Williams or an old Yankees player talk about Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris.


----------



## BobB (Aug 26, 2002)

MitchO said:


> I think that Matt and Danny felt empathy for a guy who was in a hostile environment for people speaking their minds against what they perceive to be closemindedness from above (Eli: McCarthy commission, Matt and Danny: Corporate America). Plus they clearly have respect for the history of television, and "not much is known" about that time.
> 
> I don't know if I really buy "Let's sit down and listen to an old man go on and on for three or four hours", but I can at least see the point, writing wise.


Agreed, though I think they overdid it a bit when they threw in yet another blatant past-to-present parallel, with the old guy saying how he worked harder in order to impress the girl, when we just learned last episode that Matt had done exactly that with Harriet - and then, just to make sure you didn't miss it, have Harriet walk through the room at that exact moment. Subtle it was not.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> For Matt and Danny, this was like a hardcore baseball fan being able to sit down and listen to an old Red Sox player talk about Ted Williams or an old Yankees player talk about Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris.


Thank you!

At least someone else gets it. (Nice touch that you used baseball to illustrate the point. :up: )

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> The one niggly flaw in the episode for me is that the pitcher's name in "Who's on First" is 'Tomorrow'. Given what else happens in the episode, it would have been sweet if the pitcher was named 'Today' (but not 'Tomorrow').


Here I am talking to myself again  but on reflection, Sorkin was right and I am wrong.

It's a perfect grace note that the pitcher's name is "Tomorrow". Ties in beautifully with the Darren Wells subplot.

Jan


----------



## luvmyhd (Feb 23, 2006)

BobB said:


> Sen. Joe McCarthy's House Unamerican Activities Committee. /QUOTE]
> 
> Hate for this to be my first post in this forum, but how does a Senator have anything to do with a House committee.
> 
> ...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Is Nate Corddry Rob Corddry's brother? If so, his brother's not really in Afganistan. It's a green screen!


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

vman41 said:


> Part of that portrayal was the comment that living in Columbus Ohio made them 'barely alive', implying that everyone in that area was out of the mainstream.


Please remember which character is making that comment. If Tom grew up there, and abandoned his childhood city for Los Angeles, he's got an axe to grind. He's also got all the angst about his trouble connecting with his parents wound up in that worldview.

I didn't think Tom's parents were idiots at all. They just aren't theatre people.

His mom is a sweetheart! When Tom asks her how she liked the show, she dodges the question. (It's not a stretch for me to say that she probably wouldn't like it.) But look at what she does say. She talks about how she enjoyed the _experience_ of being there. Seeing how different it looks than it does on TV (which means that she has watched the show on TV, probably to see Tom). And she says that the seats Tom got for her made her feel like a VIP. The real message is, which she won't come out and say in front of Tom's dad, is that she adored being there to watch Tom live. (Note, too, that later on, at the car, she thanks Tom again and tells him that he was really funny.)

When Tom is talking about "Who's on First?" and starts to tell them about the sketch, look at her face! You couldn't ask for a more eager audience member.

She may not like what Tom likes, but she's trying to be supportive of him and his career in any way she can.

It reminds me of an interview I saw once with Weird Al's parents. You could tell that they really didn't understand what he did, but they did see how talented he was, and they were very proud of him. Did I think they were stupid? No, I thought _how lucky Al is to have such great parents_ (may you rest in peace, Mr. & Mrs. Yankovic).

And as I said before, note that Tom complains that his dad always asks if he needs money. Tom is completely, utterly oblivious to the idea that this might be his dad's way of saying 'I care about you'.

The person who really comes across as 'dumb as a post' in these scenes is Tom. Simon certainly thinks so -- look at how he drug Tom away by his ear and told him not to be disrespectful to his dad. And Tom's dad is certainly correct to slap Tom down for being rude to his mom when he starts to lose his patience with her for calling what he does 'skits'. He's exasperated, sure, but he could have explained it nicely.

It's really stupid because Tom is standing right outside Matt's office. He could have corrected her gently -- "We call them 'sketches', Mom" -- then turned around and pointed through the windows at the Board, and answered her question about how the show was put together.

No, I don't think Sorkin thinks Tom's parents are stupid at all.

Great performances by all three actors. :up:

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Royster said:


> Why is everyone saying this wrap party is hapenning at midnight? They do the show live for the east coast audience from 11:30 to 1. That's 8:30-10:00 in LA.


There are a ton of time clues in the episode itself. Note that Simon and Matt duck out of the party -- which is already in full swing -- to catch Willie Wills' set at the Improv. Simon clearly says that Willie is due to go on at 11 PM.

Jan


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> There are a ton of time clues in the episode itself. Note that Simon and Matt duck out of the party -- which is already in full swing -- to catch Willie Wills' set at the Improv. Simon clearly says that Willie is due to go on at 11 PM.
> 
> Jan


And at one point during the episode, we saw a TV in the background and the west coast feed of S60 was just beginning, presumably meaning that it was 11:30 at that point.


----------



## MagiMike (Dec 12, 2003)

OK the show and the discussion has produced a desire for me to listen to the "who's on first" bit. Does anyone know where I can download an mp3 version ?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

luvmyhd said:


> Hate for this to be my first post in this forum, but how does a Senator have anything to do with a House committee.


He didn't, although the confusion is common. HUAC was the House committee (obviously); McCarthy's Senate committee was the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. HUAC was notable because that was where the Hollywood blacklisting originated. The SPSI was notable because of McCarthy, and it was there that Joseph Welch gave his famous speech ("Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?") that almost single-handedly turned the tide against the Communist witch-hunts.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

aindik said:


> Is Nate Corddry Rob Corddry's brother? If so, his brother's not really in Afganistan. It's a green screen!


Yes, I believe they are brothers! And good one! :up: :up: :up:


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

MP3 here: http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/who.html

and lots of other places, including some links previously posted in this thread. 

Jan


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm not buying it. The guy isn't famous, and apparently not all that talented. Except the names of the people in the picture, he told them nothing that you couldn't read in a book.



murgatroyd said:


> Thank you!
> 
> At least someone else gets it. (Nice touch that you used baseball to illustrate the point. :up: )
> 
> ...


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Oh Jan! I love reading your comments. :up: The post above about Tom and his family - perfection!! I couldn't agree more. 

I thought it was quite well done, and especially appreciated how well it showed the many ways in which we can perceive our loved ones and how we respond often to those perceptions rather than the actual moment. 

This is still my #1 show for this Fall. Please, oh please, don't let it go away.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

luvmyhd said:


> I can't imagine even the idiots in Hollywood cancelling this show. It's the only show on tv with smart characters. Most shows, even the ones I like, tend to have plots based on the stupidity of the main characters.


I like S60, but that is exactly the kind of attitude that turns a lot of people off watching it.

Aaron Sorkin is not the only writer in television capable of writing intelligent dialogue and S60 is not the only show on TV with smart characters. _Veronica Mars_, _Battlestar Galactica_, _Gilmore Girls_ all come immediately to mind as smart shows written by smart people that are filled with smart characters.

GG in particular is full of rapid witty dialogue and lots of clever pop culture references, but the difference is that the characters on GG aren't talking down to the audience and assuming they are too dumb to follow the conversation. GG instead assumes that the audience *is* able to follow all the references, even though few people probably can.

Even though I like S60, I can totally understand the complaints that the show has a smug and condescending tone. If it's canceled prematurely, the inevitable hand-wringing from a lot of critics will be that the American public just didn't "get it" because it was "too smart" for them, and I don't think that's really the problem. There are a lot of viewers who "get it" but are annoyed at being preached at and told repeatedly that they don't "get it."

Sorkin is a great writer, but he doesn't seem to recognize that there are many great writers working in television: David Milch, David Chase, Rob Thomas, Ron Moore, Amy Sherman-Palladino, and many others. If he got over his "nobody understands my greatness" issues and concentrated on giving us entertaining and believable characters engaged in compelling stories, S60 would be a much better show.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> MP3 here: http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/who.html
> 
> and lots of other places, including some links previously posted in this thread.
> 
> Jan


This one's amusing for the visuals ...


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I'll take your points in turns.



Magnolia88 said:


> Aaron Sorkin is not the only writer in television capable of writing intelligent dialogue and S60 is not the only show on TV with smart characters. _Veronica Mars_, _Battlestar Galactica_, _Gilmore Girls_ all come immediately to mind as smart shows written by smart people that are filled with smart characters.


I watch Veronica Mars and Gilmore Girls. (I don't care for BG, but I can see that there is good craftsmanship there.) I never said that Sorkin is the ONLY writer in television capable of writing intelligent stuff. However, he does have a particular distinctive style which I enjoy -- only one guy I know of writes like Sorkin, and that's Sorkin. I enjoy Sorkin and Whedon and the Palladinos, and the rest, appreciating each one in turn for the particular things they do which are distinctive to each one alone.



> GG in particular is full of rapid witty dialogue and lots of clever pop culture references, but the difference is that the characters on GG aren't talking down to the audience and assuming they are too dumb to follow the conversation. GG instead assumes that the audience *is* able to follow all the references, even though few people probably can.


I really don't see how you can make this claim. The characters on these shows are talking to each other, not to us. No one is looking out at the audience and breaking the fourth wall.

Both shows have references which the characters expect the other characters to know, or not know, as appropriate to the plot. If Sorkin really thought that we were too dumb to know the reference, he wouldn't use the reference because we wouldn't get it. He is doing his thing and expecting us to be able to keep up with him. Doesn't that mean he thinks we are smart, too?



> Even though I like S60, I can totally understand the complaints that the show has a smug and condescending tone. If it's canceled prematurely, the inevitable hand-wringing from a lot of critics will be that the American public just didn't "get it" because it was "too smart" for them, and I don't think that's really the problem. There are a lot of viewers who "get it" but are annoyed at being preached at and told repeatedly that they don't "get it."


The message I'm hearing over and over again from the show itself is that certain TV executives think the American public is dumb as a post because they are constantly pandering to the lowest common denominator. The characters who make Studio 60, and Jordin McDeere, think that the audience is smarter than that and that it deserves good TV. How is this condescending?

BTW, I should point out in case some of you don't know (note: ignorance does not equal stupidity) that Simon's comment about "writers in the room that didn't go to Harvard" is an allusion to the genesis of some US sketch comedy in the college environment (Harvard Lampoon -- > Natioinal Lampoon -- > Saturday Night Live). 'College comedy' is just a flavor -- it doesn't mean 'better' comedy, it is just one of many styles.

The one place I think Studio 60 may be more demanding for the audience than an ordinary TV show is that it does need to be _watched_. If you don't see the physical stuff going on with the actors, you miss a lot. Note that the scenes with Tom and his parents may 'read' a completely different way if you don't watch the scenes. (For instance, if you aren't looking at what's going on, you miss that Tom is so wrapped up in his disappointment that his dad doens't know "Who's on First?" that he doesn't see the eager look on his mom's face when he starts to tell them about it.)

Jan


----------



## DVDerek (Sep 30, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> I'll take your points in turns.
> 
> I watch Veronica Mars and Gilmore Girls. (I don't care for BG, but I can see that there is good craftsmanship there.) I never said that Sorkin is the ONLY writer in television capable of writing intelligent stuff. However, he does have a particular distinctive style which I enjoy -- only one guy I know of writes like Sorkin, and that's Sorkin. I enjoy Sorkin and Whedon and the Palladinos, and the rest, appreciating each one in turn for the particular things they do which are distinctive to each one alone.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

7thton said:


> I'm not buying it. The guy isn't famous, and apparently not all that talented. Except the names of the people in the picture, he told them nothing that you couldn't read in a book.


That's not the point.

Eli's character is very much like Burt Lancaster's character, Dr. Archibald "Moonlight" Graham, in the movie _Field of Dreams_ (adapted from W. P. Kinsella's superb novel _Shoeless Joe_, which IMHO is far superior to the (pretty-good) film).

The point is not that the character is famous, it is that he made it to the Big Leagues. (There are other similarities, too, but I don't want to go into it because I don't want to spoil _Shoeless Joe_ for those who haven't read it, or _Field of Dreams_ for those who haven't seen it. I do recommend both for anyone who enjoyed this episode of Studio 60, for reasons that will be obvious once you've read/seen the other story.)

Danny and Matt are in the Big Leagues now, but they weren't around when Eli was around, so they have no experience of what it was to be in the Big Leagues in Eli's time.

Calvin has studied the invasion of Normandy and reenacted it with his toy soldiers and has all his notes about what happened there -- but Eli _was actually there_.

There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between reading about something out of a book, and hearing about it from one of the participants in the actual event. No matter how humble the role of the person who was there.

Danny and Matt and Calvin understand that, and respect that.

Much more, apparently, than you do.

Jan


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

murgatroyd said:


> Calvin has studied the invasion of Normandy and reenacted it with his toy soldiers and has all his notes about what happened there -- but Eli _was actually there_.


Exactly. I've watched Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day, The Big Red One, To Hell and Back, and probably about 30 other WWII movies.

But none of them compared to talking to my late Grandfather who was actually on the beach.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> Eli's character is very much like Burt Lancaster's character, Dr. Archibald "Moonlight" Graham, in the movie _Field of Dreams_ (adapted from W. P. Kinsella's superb novel _Shoeless Joe_, which IMHO is far superior to the (pretty-good) film).
> 
> ...


I was going to answer that post, but you did it much better than I could have.

+1


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

murgatroyd said:


> I never said that Sorkin is the ONLY writer in television capable of writing intelligent stuff.


Who said you did? I was responding to *luvmyhd* who said:



> I can't imagine even the idiots in Hollywood cancelling this show. It's the only show on tv with smart characters.


I disagree with that. S60 is not the ONLY show on tv with smart characters.

And it's that kind of attitude that turns people away from the show - not just from S60 fans, but from the show itself (look how smart we are). I like S60, but when I read the TwoP thread, it's full of vitriol from people who can't stand the "smug and condescending" attitude. And that's probably why the show is hemorrhaging viewers every week, because it's turning off the "smart" viewers it needs.

Since _Sports Night_, Sorkin has always been criticized for having a "preachy, smug, condescending" tone with his writing. I never really saw it in SN or TWW (okay TWW a little), but I totally understand it for S60. I like it, but I want to like it more than I do. This episode didn't help much.



> However, he does have a particular distinctive style which I enjoy -- only one guy I know of writes like Sorkin, and that's Sorkin. I enjoy Sorkin and Whedon and the Palladinos, and the rest, appreciating each one in turn for the particular things they do which are distinctive to each one alone.


I completely agree. I love Sorkin's distinctive style of dialogue. I loved it in SN, and I loved it in TWW. I'm loving it less in S60. Partly because it seems to be a lot of been there, done that -- SN did the same thing, and did it better. But also because the characters in S60 sound like obvious stand-ins for Sorkin himself and he has a lot of axes to grind. I don't want to hear his diatribes, I want interesting and believable characters and compelling stories.

For example, there is not one thing about Jordan that rings true. I know Sorkin can write a competent intelligent female because I loved Dana and CJ. But Jordan, with her pathetic "I don't have any friends" whining? Please. I didn't buy that a network president would act like that in a million years. And Simon's story came straight out of _Boyz in the Hood_. Really? Is that the best we can do? I don't want cartoon caricatures, I want characters I can understand or relate to, or at least characters that seem like interesting people.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Note that the scenes with Tom and his parents may 'read' a completely different way if you don't watch the scenes. (For instance, if you aren't looking at what's going on, you miss that Tom is so wrapped up in his disappointment that his dad doens't know "Who's on First?" that he doesn't see the eager look on his mom's face when he starts to tell them about it.)


Funny, I watched the show and my read was completely different. Tom was looking straight at his mom when he bailed on the explanation because he was afaid his mom would get as confused as Lou Costello in the sketch itself and take too long to get through it. Tom knows she's eager to comprehend, but doesn't think she can, just like a typically 17 year old son (too bad he's 27).


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Magnolia88 said:


> I disagree with that. S60 is not the ONLY show on tv with smart characters.


In fact, often times they are not smart at all.



> And it's that kind of attitude that turns people away from the show - not just from S60 fans, but from the show itself (look how smart we are). I like S60, but when I read the TwoP thread, it's full of vitriol from people who can't stand the "smug and condescending" attitude. And that's probably why the show is hemorrhaging viewers every week, because it's turning off the "smart" viewers it needs.


I dunno, sorkin-o-philes are pretty grating. When the west wing was becoming popular, my initial reaction was, well I guess it's not for me. I thought it was a little too self-impressed and oversimplified complex issues. But I didn't really feel strongly about it. Over time, as more and more brainless zombies would tell me how the west wing was so intelligent and how I just must not like intelligent shows, should stick to reality tv, sorkin is a genius, etc. eventually I began to despise the show. My favorite conversation about the west wing went something like that, and then when asked which show I liked that was intelligent, I said The Wire. Then I was told, "I don't like cop shows. They are all the same."

I can see that happening to studio 60. The first episode's thread here was practically a cult religion dedicated to aaron sorkin, who I personally find to be overrated. I really don't want to suffer through 10 more years of people smelling their own farts and offering to have sorkin's babies, even for a show I genuinely like.



> I completely agree. I love Sorkin's distinctive style of dialogue. I loved it in SN, and I loved it in TWW. I'm loving it less in S60. Partly because it seems to be a lot of been there, done that -- SN did the same thing, and did it better. But also because the characters in S60 sound like obvious stand-ins for Sorkin himself and he has a lot of axes to grind. I don't want to hear his diatribes, I want interesting and believable characters and compelling stories.


Strange... I find the dialogue in S60 more natural because it's coming from comedians. I liked SN dialogue a lot, but it's a lot easier to believe a sketch comedy actor can zip one liners around every 2 seconds than it is to believe a sports nut can.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

vman41 said:


> Funny, I watched the show and my read was completely different. Tom was looking straight at his mom when he bailed on the explanation because he was afaid his mom would get as confused as Lou Costello in the sketch itself and take too long to get through it. Tom knows she's eager to comprehend, but doesn't think she can, just like a typically 17 year old son (too bad he's 27).


I don't disagree, but the way I saw it was, he knew how long it would take and that his dad would blow a gasket if he tried. In any case, he's caught up in how his mom can't follow him, so he's not feeling the mom-love. 

Jan


----------



## Domandred (Sep 8, 2006)

Someone help me out. Tom told his parents that they would find themselves in a whole other sketch if he tried to explain Who's on First.

That sketch was done. I can't remember what TV show or movie it was on but the sketch or scenes of someone trying to explain was done. Anyone remember what or when this was or is my brain just making stuff up again?


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> I don't disagree, but the way I saw it was, he knew how long it would take and that his dad would blow a gasket. In any case, he's caught up in how his mom can't follow him, so he's not feeling the mom-love.


Yes, and his dad would also come down hard on him if he lost patience with the mom (as happened in their first scene together), so he'd want to tread lightly. He gave the record to his dad instead of his mom, multple ways to read that.


----------



## BobB (Aug 26, 2002)

markz said:


> Yes, I believe they are brothers! And good one! :up: :up: :up:


Not only are they in fact brothers, but Nate has appeared at least once on The Daily Show, that's where I first saw him.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> For example, there is not one thing about Jordan that rings true. I know Sorkin can write a competent intelligent female because I loved Dana and CJ. But Jordan, with her pathetic "I don't have any friends" whining? Please. I didn't buy that a network president would act like that in a million years.


So it has no significance to you that she has been drinking before she hit the party? You'd expect her to act exactly the same as she would if she were sober?

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Domandred said:


> Someone help me out. Tom told his parents that they would find themselves in a whole other sketch if he tried to explain Who's on First.
> 
> That sketch was done. I can't remember what TV show or movie it was on but the sketch or scenes of someone trying to explain was done. Anyone remember what or when this was or is my brain just making stuff up again?


I don't think you are making it up. I think I've seen it. And I may have seen a reference to it while I was reading one of the links about WoF earlier in the thread.

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I can see that happening to studio 60. The first episode's thread here was practically a cult religion dedicated to aaron sorkin, who I personally find to be overrated. I really don't want to suffer through 10 more years of people smelling their own farts and offering to have sorkin's babies, even for a show I genuinely like.


So, you don't like Sorkin fans and think they are all the same.

In other words, you're just like the people who told you they wouldn't watch The Wire because they didn't like cop shows.

Okay, I get it now.

Jan


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Domandred said:


> That sketch was done. I can't remember what TV show or movie it was on but the sketch or scenes of someone trying to explain was done. Anyone remember what or when this was or is my brain just making stuff up again?


I recall a couple along those lines, but the only one that comes to mind was one done on Kid's in the Hall.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

They acted like Eli was some sort of legend. His wasn't and isn't. And the "stories" Eli told weren't interesting. All he did were name some people in a photo. Sure, he was at Normandy...but he didn't have anything to say about it. As far as his other stories went, they just weren't interesting. Again, they acted like he was some sort of legend. But the fact is, he was just some guy way down on the food chain. Briefly.

I guess I "understand" why he *might* be interesting to Matt, Danny, and the rest, but I don't think he actually *was*.

And before you preach to me about respect, please remember that this is a TV show.



murgatroyd said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> Eli's character is very much like Burt Lancaster's character, Dr. Archibald "Moonlight" Graham, in the movie _Field of Dreams_ (adapted from W. P. Kinsella's superb novel _Shoeless Joe_, which IMHO is far superior to the (pretty-good) film).
> 
> ...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

7thton said:


> They acted like Eli was some sort of legend. His wasn't and isn't. And the "stories" Eli told weren't interesting. All he did were name some people in a photo. Sure, he was at Normandy...but he didn't have anything to say about it. As far as his other stories went, they just weren't interesting. Again, they acted like he was some sort of legend. But the fact is, he was just some guy way down on the food chain. Briefly.
> 
> I guess I "understand" why he *might* be interesting to Matt, Danny, and the rest, but I don't think he actually *was*.
> 
> And before you preach to me about respect, please remember that this is a TV show.


Wow. You just don't get it. Isn't there anything that you're really passionate about? If so, think about being able to sit down with someone who experienced that and just pick their brain about it. Wouldn't it be cool to talk to a roadie for some of the great rock bands of the past? It would be cool to talk to a guy who rode the bench on a Vince Lombardi or Tom Landry team. It would be cool to talk to someone who worked as an extra on a Hitchcock film. It would be cool to talk to someone who worked as a pee-on in the White House (during any era). Even though he wasn't anyone important, he was around things and people that Matt, Danny, and Cal consider important and therefore they want to hear his stories.

And what do you mean his stories weren't interesting? He didn't tell any. The stories were presumably told off camera, but we weren't supposed to judge the quality of the stories, we were simply supposed to understand the reverence that the characters had for the past.

Oh, and stop Top Posting!!


----------



## mhn2 (Sep 10, 2003)

Did anybody notice the marque over the theater during the scene when the guy walks his parents out to their car? It reads, "Next week: Jessica Simpson"


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

What if Aaron Sorkin wrote a show about baseball?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> So, you don't like Sorkin fans and think they are all the same.
> 
> In other words, you're just like the people who told you they wouldn't watch The Wire because they didn't like cop shows.
> 
> ...


Yes, brilliant logic there. I am ok with sorkin "fans" which are far different than rabid zombie sorkin fans who immediately insult people when they say they don't like a sorkin show. You can see this very same behavior on the threads for studio 60. In fact I am somewhat of a sorkin fan too, even though I think he is overrated by some. Not all sorkin fans will insult you if you don't like the west wing. The point being, to me, it's far less of a turn off for a show to be pretensious than for its fans to be pretensious.

Secondly, the point was not that the person didn't watch the wire, which was fine, but that they assumed that because they don't like something (cop shows) that it couldn't possibly be intelligently written.


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

Domandred said:


> Someone help me out. Tom told his parents that they would find themselves in a whole other sketch if he tried to explain Who's on First.
> 
> That sketch was done. I can't remember what TV show or movie it was on but the sketch or scenes of someone trying to explain was done. Anyone remember what or when this was or is my brain just making stuff up again?


Probably "Kids in the Hall." The relevant portion of the skit:

Well, I'll explain it to you. See, on first base is Hu, Samuel Hu, and you're probably not familiar with that name because his grandfather was Chinese. And on second base is Hector Watt, W-A-T-T Watt, and that's not so unusual because James Watt invented the steam engine. And on third base is Phil Iduno, I-D-U-N-O, and if you do say that fast, it does sound like the phrase "Gee, I dunno," but it's actually Iduno, Phil Iduno.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

trainman said:


> What if Aaron Sorkin wrote a show about baseball?


Thanks for the link! 

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

vman41 said:


> Yes, and his dad would also come down hard on him if he lost patience with the mom (as happened in their first scene together), so he'd want to tread lightly. He gave the record to his dad instead of his mom, multple ways to read that.


His mom is already in his court. She's bound and determined to say that he's funny even if he stinks up the joint (remember, she's just watched him in the lobster skit that Matt and the reporter were saying 'wasn't funny yet' -- did they fix it by airtime, I wonder?).

So my take is, he gives the record to his dad in an attempt to forge some kind of connection with his dad.

I also chalked up his reluctance to explain "Who's on First?" to the natural reaction of any comedian who suddenly realizes he was about to try to do BOTH halves of one of the funniest two-person sketches ever.

Robin Williams could do both Abbot and Costello's parts and still make it sing, maybe, but many other comedians might not want to attempt that. 

Jan


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

7thton said:


> They acted like Eli was some sort of legend. His wasn't and isn't. And the "stories" Eli told weren't interesting. All he did were name some people in a photo. Sure, he was at Normandy...but he didn't have anything to say about it. As far as his other stories went, they just weren't interesting. Again, they acted like he was some sort of legend. But the fact is, he was just some guy way down on the food chain. Briefly.


In a world and forum full of petty nits, this is way up there. First of all how do you think they thought he was some kind of legend. Nobody ever said or did anything to say or intone that. They didn't even know who he was. Yet when they learned who he was it was interesting to them, because it directly tied into what they are doing and what they passionately do for a living. Honestly, I find it a bit befuddling why you would find someone in the position of Danny, Matt and the Director, to be interested in what someone who did what they did in a different time in a unique era might have to share with them. You didn't hear every story you had to tell. All he was doing was giving a break down of who was who. It was simply an abbreviated synopsis of what he was doing. While Matt and Danny might have enjoyed 4 hours of hearing what he had to say, it would not necessarily make for good Monday Night Network television.

You seem to be picking a fight with this scene for some reason. Not sure what you hang up is, but there was nothing crazy, forced, fake, or unnatural about the whole thing, barring the existance of the man wandering there in the first place. If you were a lifelong writer and you ran into someone who actually knew and existed with Ernest Hemmingway, and he wanted to share his stories with you, you would like listen.



> I guess I "understand" why he *might* be interesting to Matt, Danny, and the rest, but I don't think he actually *was*.


I don't get your point at all. So you actually do understand the whole point of the story, but decide that it is just wrong? I would say in this case unless you are a television producer or television director, or even these two characters you are not really in a position to say he was or was not interesting to them. The point was not for him to be interesting in a general sense. The point is you know that they are supposed to find him interesting. Do you really want the next 4 episodes of the show to revolve around him telling old stories just so they can prove he is interesting? It is like the issue some people have with the sketches not being funny. Who cares. I just think you are focusing on the wrong things. The point was to show those guys had a real appreciation for the history of television and Studio 60. You take out of it that the guy did not seem that interesting. That is definitely burying the headline.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> I think if you had no idea who the "Hollywood 10" were or about the blacklisting, you missed a huge part of the episode.


Definitely. I had no idea what the heck they were talking about until I read it here. At one point my wife looked at me and we were both like "huh?" and we had to finally just conclude that Eli, sometime after the war, had managed to get a sketch on the air and something happened to keep him from doing more of it. It wasn't even immediately obvious to me that this 'naming names' was directly related to the Hollywood 10 that had been mentioned earlier in the episode. As I type this now I realize how clever it was ("do you have a name?") but it whooshed me BIG TIME.

EDIT TO ADD: When the episode referred to his list of names as an anagram it threw me off for a minute too. That is *not* a definition of anagram that I have ever heard before.


----------



## stargazer21 (May 22, 2002)

MitchO said:


> I don't know if I really buy "Let's sit down and listen to an old man go on and on for three or four hours", but I can at least see the point, writing wise.


Frankly, some of my most treasured memories are the many times I have sat with and elderly person and "let them go on and on for hours". I'm 39, and have had a pretty easy life. That generation is a treasure trove of humour, wisdom, and history.

Try it sometime, you might be suprised.


----------



## stargazer21 (May 22, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> Wow. You just don't get it. Isn't there anything that you're really passionate about? If so, think about being able to sit down with someone who experienced that and just pick their brain about it. Wouldn't it be cool to talk to a roadie for some of the great rock bands of the past? It would be cool to talk to a guy who rode the bench on a Vince Lombardi or Tom Landry team. It would be cool to talk to someone who worked as an extra on a Hitchcock film. It would be cool to talk to someone who worked as a pee-on in the White House (during any era). Even though he wasn't anyone important, he was around things and people that Matt, Danny, and Cal consider important and therefore they want to hear his stories.
> 
> And what do you mean his stories weren't interesting? He didn't tell any. The stories were presumably told off camera, but we weren't supposed to judge the quality of the stories, we were simply supposed to understand the reverence that the characters had for the past.
> 
> Oh, and stop Top Posting!!


+1 :up:

I kinda embarassed myself (and I was alone) when Eli first started telling his story. When he was quoting someone and he slammed his hand down on the table, I suddenly burst into tears.

He sounded just like my Dad, who was a great story teller. Dad was also kinda a pioneer in TV news and while it's doubtful you would find his name in any books, he personally knew all the players (and humbled them on more than one occasion!). He could tell grand stories of when news was born of passion to get the story out...not to please the advertisers. Even if you weren't into TV news, his stories would have you wrapped up. Just a cameraman watching history through a lens.....

Anyway, it was a very unexpected but welcome memory.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Fun with imdb.

Eli Wallach's credits include:



> "The Philco Television Playhouse"
> ... aka Arena Theatre (USA: new title)
> ... aka Repertory Theatre (USA: new title)
> ... aka The Philco-Goodyear Television Playhouse (USA: new title)


Notice that when Tom talks about Studio 60 (the former Addion Theatre) he cites _The Studio 60 Theatre of the Air_ and _The NBS-Philco Comedy Hour _.

Jan


----------



## jwjody (Dec 7, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> (remember, she's just watched him in the lobster *skit* that Matt and the reporter were saying 'wasn't funny yet' -- did they fix it by airtime, I wonder?).
> Jan


No, she just watched him in a lobster *sketch*.   

J


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

jwjody said:


> No, she just watched him in a lobster *sketch*.


[Harriet Hayes]

I deserved that.

[/Harriet Hayes]



Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I think if you had no idea who the "Hollywood 10" were or about the blacklisting, you missed a huge part of the episode. I'll admit not picking up on it the first time through myself, but I quickly googled for it and educated myself. Definitely a very interesting (and as mentioned, ugly) part in Hollywood history.


The episode plays very differently if you are already familiar with the blacklisting, that's for sure.

I didn't know the whole story, but I knew enough of the history that when Eli gave Cal the "three" names, I recognized some of them. So I knew Eli had to be a writer and guessed that he too must have been blacklisted; I didn't have to wait for Danny to explain it to Cal. Similarly, while I'm not a student of that era, I know enough about the theatre and the period when Clifford Odets wrote that when Eli says that people don't want to believe now that he knew Clifford Odets, that meant something to me. (Odets' play _Waiting for Lefty_ was huge in its day -- any performer or critic who knew _anything_ about the theatre of that time would have heard the buzz about it.)

I haven't had a chance to research yet, but I'd bet that Eli's 'such a bargain -- it's a steal' refrain is also part of a sketch; if it's not a sketch from our history of comedy, then perhaps it's a part of Eli's own sketch that aired. It's part of the test that Eli constructs for Cal, just as the mashup of the names of the Hollywood 10 is, or the reference to Tars and Spars.

Rewatching the episode, once you know all these things, makes for a very differnt experience. Note that Eli's comments "I'm not a criminal," which on first viewing we take to mean that he's not stealing the picture, can also refer to the blacklist; that when he says "that's my picture" it can mean two things, both that the picture belongs to him (and who knows, it could have been his own personal property) and (as we learn later), he is in the photo.

There are hints of his identity in the studio history which Tom is telling his parents. And there are several other key ideas tied up in Eli's story which hook in thematically to other parts of the episode.

It's all beautifully folded togther, like Damascus steel. Definitely an episode that is worth watching more than once.

Jan


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I don't think you have to be famliar with the hollywood 10 to follow the plot about blacklisting and mccarthyism. I know I hadn't heard of the hollywood 10 and I followed the plot just fine... blacklisting was pretty pervasive. It's the same reason that nick nolte and others refused to clap for elia kazan at the oscars a few years back.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

marksman said:


> In a world and forum full of petty nits, this is way up there. First of all how do you think they thought he was some kind of legend. Nobody ever said or did anything to say or intone that. They didn't even know who he was. Yet when they learned who he was it was interesting to them, because it directly tied into what they are doing and what they passionately do for a living. Honestly, I find it a bit befuddling why you would find someone in the position of Danny, Matt and the Director, to be interested in what someone who did what they did in a different time in a unique era might have to share with them. You didn't hear every story you had to tell. All he was doing was giving a break down of who was who. It was simply an abbreviated synopsis of what he was doing. While Matt and Danny might have enjoyed 4 hours of hearing what he had to say, it would not necessarily make for good Monday Night Network television.
> 
> You seem to be picking a fight with this scene for some reason. Not sure what you hang up is, but there was nothing crazy, forced, fake, or unnatural about the whole thing, barring the existance of the man wandering there in the first place. If you were a lifelong writer and you ran into someone who actually knew and existed with Ernest Hemmingway, and he wanted to share his stories with you, you would like listen.
> 
> I don't get your point at all. So you actually do understand the whole point of the story, but decide that it is just wrong? I would say in this case unless you are a television producer or television director, or even these two characters you are not really in a position to say he was or was not interesting to them. The point was not for him to be interesting in a general sense. The point is you know that they are supposed to find him interesting. Do you really want the next 4 episodes of the show to revolve around him telling old stories just so they can prove he is interesting? It is like the issue some people have with the sketches not being funny. Who cares. I just think you are focusing on the wrong things. The point was to show those guys had a real appreciation for the history of television and Studio 60. You take out of it that the guy did not seem that interesting. That is definitely burying the headline.


Whatever. I just thought the whole thing was a bit much. Matt and Danny, or whoever was in the room at the end, were just acting mesmerized by him. I guess none of us are in a position to judge whether or not Matt & Danny, as fictional characters, would find him *that* interesting, but it just didn't strike me as that believable that they would. Obviously, you see it differently.

It didn't interest me as a viewer and I have doubts about whether most people in Matt & Danny's positions would find it *as* interesting as it was portrayed on the show.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

7thton said:


> Whatever. I just thought the whole thing was a bit much. Matt and Danny, or whoever was in the room at the end, were just acting mesmerized by him. I guess none of us are in a position to judge whether or not Matt & Danny, as fictional characters, would find him *that* interesting, but it just didn't strike me as that believable that they would. Obviously, you see it differently.
> 
> It didn't interest me as a viewer and I have doubts about whether most people in Matt & Danny's positions would find it *as* interesting as it was portrayed on the show.


It interested me as a viewer quite a bit, and I probably would have been as enthralled as they were. Reading about something in a book and hearing it from someone who was actually there are not the same thing. Thus explaining why I nearly cried when watching the documentary at the end of band of brothers.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

7thton said:


> Whatever. I just thought the whole thing was a bit much. Matt and Danny, or whoever was in the room at the end, were just acting mesmerized by him. I guess none of us are in a position to judge whether or not Matt & Danny, as fictional characters, would find him *that* interesting, but it just didn't strike me as that believable that they would. Obviously, you see it differently.
> 
> It didn't interest me as a viewer and I have doubts about whether most people in Matt & Danny's positions would find it *as* interesting as it was portrayed on the show.


You say "I guess none of us are in a position to judge whether or not Matt & Danny, as fictional characters, would find him *that* interesting" but you know, other people besides yours truly have come along to say that they would want to talk to someone like Eli if they had the chance. So maybe you are wrong about that "none of us" thing.

Anyway, what I'd like to know is this:

Can you explain to me, since you don't think the whole deal with Eli belonged in the episode, in what way do the scenes with Eli not belong in the show?

I'd like to know why you think they should not be there -- and I'd like a reason other than "I just didn't think it was that interesting", since you've covered that ground already.

What do you think the episode was about? In what way do those scenes not fit in?

Seriously, I really want to know.

Jan


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

To me, this smacks of "I didn't find it interesting, so I don't think anyone else, including the characters, would find it interesting either." Talk about ego run wild.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> To me, this smacks of "I didn't find it interesting, so I don't think anyone else, including the characters, would find it interesting either." Talk about ego run wild.


Nice insult. Very charming.

My whole point, all along, is that I have a hard time believing that Matt & Danny, and the rest of the crew, would find Eli as interesting as they did. Simple as that. You have your ideas about the characters, I have mine. You should not be surprised that they do not exactly match.

Also, I have a hard time believing that the crew of the show would be so acomadating of Eli. They couldn't even get a straight answer out of the crazy old coot, and yet promised to give him a picture he *stole* off the wall.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Okay, we get that, your suspenders of disbelief popped.

What do you think the episode was about?

You don't see the point of why Eli was in the episode.

If you're right -- and it was all pointless -- then what do you think the point of the episode was?

Hint: do not use the phrase "I didn't think" in your answer. State something about  the episode in a sentence without a negative. 

You say elsewhere that you like Sorkin -- was there anything in the episode that you did like?

Jan


----------



## Doh (May 18, 2001)

/smeeking

I thought the Hollywood 10 stuff was not significantly better or worse than the rest of the ep, but I think the overall mediocrity of this show convinced me to cancel the SP.

/smeeking


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

murgatroyd said:


> Okay, we get that, your suspenders of disbelief popped.
> 
> What do you think the episode was about?
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure why you want so desperately for me to tell you what I thought it was about, but I think it was about whatshisname's relationship with his parents, the interacting between DL's character and Matt...the whole diversity issue. It was also about Jordan's lack of a social life...etc.

I like the show in general...as I liked Sports Night.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

7thton said:


> I'm not so sure why you want so desperately for me to tell you what I thought it was about, but I think it was about whatshisname's relationship with his parents, the interacting between DL's character and Matt...the whole diversity issue. It was also about Jordan's lack of a social life...etc.
> 
> I like the show in general...as I liked Sports Night.


It was that, and also about the history of sketch comedy and big tv studios. Boring to some, interesting to others...


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

The baseball analogy made earlier of Matt and Danny talking with Eli Wallach ("like talking with an old baseball player about Ted Williams or the Yankees") was a good one, but I think it can be improved.

It would really be more like a couple of young black men (say, DL Hughley's character and the new writer) talking to an old black man who played in the ***** Leagues for several years with Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson and many other great ***** League players, and who was invited to spring training with the New York Yankees in 1945 (a few years before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier), but was told he couldn't be on the club because he was black, and who blew out his ACL in 1948 before he could give MLB another chance once the color line was broken.

I doubt any young black man who works in the sports field and who has an appreciation of what the ***** Leagues and the breaking of baseball's color barrier meant to the country as a whole and to African Americans particularly could resist having a long conversation with a man like that. (I'm a middle-aged white guy that doesn't work in the sports field, and I know I couldn't.)

To Matt and Danny, this would be someone who was unjustly treated, tremendously deserving of their respect and appreciation, and able to give them insight into a part of the most important political event in the history of the American entertainment industry that couldn't be gleaned in any better way. Politics play a big role in Matt's life - he was willing to and did in fact lose a girlfriend who he is crazy about over politics (a huge fight over her appearing on the 700 Club) and a job he was crazy about over politics (being fired for sticking up for Bill Maher's comments in the wake of 9/11). Especially because of his firing, he would have tremendous empathy for those that were blacklisted in Hollywood.


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> There are all sorts of things going on in all the scenes with Tom and his parents. Tom's dad seems like a proud guy -- I don't think he could cope very well with the fact that Tom could buy his house four times over. It could be that his refusal to acknowledge it and keep on asking Tom if he needs any money is just stubborn pride.
> 
> Or it could be that when his dad asks "do you need any money" he isn't really talking about money, he's asking if Tom is okay -- just like the farm boy in _The Princess Bride_, when he says "as you wish", is really sending another message.
> 
> ...


Also, the dad's reaction when Tom asks him about whether he still has "that record player" is that Tom is going to buy for him some kind of new-fangled CD player or the like. That goes right along with the themes you mention: it hurts his pride that Tom can so easily afford things like CD players, so he bristles like it would be an imposition for Tom to get him one.

Tom of course only asked because he wanted to make sure his dad had something he'd be able to play the "Who's on First" record on.

(I also like the theory that Tom had purchased the record well ahead of their trip as a souvenir, perhaps off of eBay. He would have bought a record because he knows that's all his father has to play audio.)


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

MitchO said:


> I think that Matt and Danny felt empathy for a guy who was in a hostile environment for people speaking their minds against what they perceive to be closemindedness from above (Eli: McCarthy commission, Matt and Danny: Corporate America). Plus they clearly have respect for the history of television, and "not much is known" about that time.
> 
> I don't know if I really buy "Let's sit down and listen to an old man go on and on for three or four hours", but I can at least see the point, writing wise.


I want to go back to this point for a moment, if I may, and also this one:



Graymalkin said:


> For Matt and Danny, this was like a hardcore baseball fan being able to sit down and listen to an old Red Sox player talk about Ted Williams or an old Yankees player talk about Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris.


Assume an alternate universe where an entire Yankees team was thrown out of the game because of something that did nothing to do with baseball. If Maris and Mantle were rookies on that team, what would it be like?

We can't know how famous or good Eli might have been, because he never got the chance, and neither did his fellow writers. Note that Danny says "Not a lot of those people were heard from again, Mr. Weinraub, were you blacklisted?"

For those of you unfamiliar with the blacklist, do bear in mind that people's careers were destroyed for no reason whatever. It didn't matter what your own activities were -- as long as someone on the toxic list knew who you were, if HUAC found out, all they had to do was ask someone before the committte if they knew your name. In some cases, writers were blacklisted just because the committee asked about them, _even when the guy in the hot seat made no answer_.

Edited to add: this post was being written at the same time as Bananfish's post about the ***** League players.

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

7thton said:


> I'm not so sure why you want so desperately for me to tell you what I thought it was about, but I think it was about whatshisname's relationship with his parents, the interacting between DL's character and Matt...the whole diversity issue. It was also about Jordan's lack of a social life...etc.


So you don't see the episode as one cohesive thing. It's just a collection of scenes to you?

Jan


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> So you don't see the episode as one cohesive thing. It's just a collection of scenes to you?


You're kidding, right? You think this episode was just about one thing that magically tied together? Please explain how jordan not having friends tied in with the hollywood blacklist story then. Was there a subtext implying that she is a communist or a member of al qaeda or something?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Doh said:


> I thought the Hollywood 10 stuff was not significantly better or worse than the rest of the ep, but I think the overall mediocrity of this show convinced me to cancel the SP.


If you didn't like this episode then I think you made the right decision. IMO this episode was much, much better than the others and I hope it stays this good. Cheers!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

madscientist said:


> If you didn't like this episode then I think you made the right decision. IMO this episode was much, much better than the others and I hope it stays this good. Cheers!


I agree. Watching this episode, I kept thinking, "I hope future episodes are more like this and less like the previous episodes"...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Bananfish said:


> Also, the dad's reaction when Tom asks him about whether he still has "that record player" is that Tom is going to buy for him some kind of new-fangled CD player or the like. That goes right along with the themes you mention: it hurts his pride that Tom can so easily afford things like CD players, so he bristles like it would be an imposition for Tom to get him one.


Er... hello, 2006 calling!   You can get a CD player for like $10 at your local Radio Shack or whatever.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Er... hello, 2006 calling!   You can get a CD player for like $10 at your local Radio Shack or whatever.


You beat me to it...


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> The characters on these shows are talking to each other, not to us. No one is looking out at the audience and breaking the fourth wall.


I have now subjected myself to 6 episodes of this show, and I must say that while I love the characters and the storylines, the dialog makes the entire thing come across as very smug, self-important and condescending.

I disagree that these characters are talking to eachother - the dialog sounds like when two people are talking for the benefit of a third one who they know is listening in on them, but they don't want to let that third person know that they know he's listening.  The dialog is very literate, but has nothing to do with how real people talk. It's all about showing off and advancing the plot.

I have however decided to stick with the show, because like I said, I like the characters and the storylines. One thing I realized when watching this was that in order to enjoy it, I have to suspend disbelief - just like I can enjoy an action movie by appreciating the stunts and the fight choreography, even though it's completely unrealistic, I found enjoyment in this episode by letting the dialog work as a sort of verbal ballet, expertly choreographed and timed, but devoid of all pretense of reality.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

MickeS said:


> I disagree that these characters are talking to eachother - the dialog sounds like when two people are talking for the benefit of a third one who they know is listening in on them, but they don't want to let that third person know that they know he's listening.


Almost no dialog in movies, plays, and books reflects how people really have conversations. Drama would lose too much if the characters weren't way more articulate than people in real life.

When Sports Night first aired, I immediately concluded that while the intense dialog was great, it exhausts the audience so the show was doomed. I think Sorkin learned how to dial it back just enough to make a sustainable show.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

vman41 said:


> Almost no dialog in movies, plays, and books reflects how people really have conversations. Drama would lose too much if the characters weren't way more articulate than people in real life.
> 
> When Sports Night first aired, I immediately concluded that while the intense dialog was great, it exhausts the audience so the show was doomed. I think Sorkin learned how to dial it back just enough to make a sustainable show.


It's not only what they say, but how they say it, that's what I meant by "choreographed" - the whole rhythm of it is snap-snap-snap, very stilted and theatrical. It doesn't have the more modern naturalistic approach to acting and dialog that is more common today. Reminds me of Hepburn/Tracy stuff like "Adam's Rib", which I like a lot.

It's not really criticism, just something that makes me have to approach it differently than I approach most other modern movies and TV shows.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

In a lot of ways, Sorkin's style shares many characteristics with Robert Altman, who was famous for having lots of overlapping dialog, and Joss Whedon, who practically invented a unique dialog style for every one of his shows (particularly Firefly, of course, but even Buffy had a very distinct style to it that was inspired by "valleyspeak.")


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> You're kidding, right? You think this episode was just about one thing that magically tied together? Please explain how jordan not having friends tied in with the hollywood blacklist story then. Was there a subtext implying that she is a communist or a member of al qaeda or something?


You told me WHO the story was about, but I asked WHAT the episode about.

And there are three main themes (at least) which run through the entire episode.

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who can name them.

Jan


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Er... hello, 2006 calling!   You can get a CD player for like $10 at your local Radio Shack or whatever.


Well, point well taken ... BUT:

1) The dad wouldn't know that a CD player is so cheap .... the last piece of audio equipment he bought was a freakin' RECORD PLAYER! So maybe 1975 when he made his last audio equipment purchase? Plus even if the dad knew how cheap CD players can be had for today, he'd probably be subconsciously fearful that Tom would buy some expensive state-of-the-art model. (I'll bet that Tom has bought him something expensive before in a grand gesture of "look Dad, I've made it!" that he didn't approve of.)

2) Beyond the actual amount of cash, buying a CD player represents a modern entertainment device ... something the dad is resisting because "modern entertainment" is what Tom does for a living that he disapproves of.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

murgatroyd said:


> You told me WHO the story was about, but I asked WHAT the episode about.
> 
> And there are three main themes (at least) which run through the entire episode.
> 
> ...


You sound a bit like an overzealous lit teacher. Do you want that report double-spaced?


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

Roadblock said:


> You sound a bit like an overzealous lit teacher. Do you want that report double-spaced?


 :up:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bananfish said:


> (I also like the theory that Tom had purchased the record well ahead of their trip as a souvenir, perhaps off of eBay. He would have bought a record because he knows that's all his father has to play audio.)


I don't buy that theory because he simply made reference to "Who's on First" during the tour, fully expecting it to be something they'd be able to relate to. However, I think he was shocked they'd never heard it and realized that this might be something they would appreciate and did whatever he did to get a copy of it.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Roadblock said:


> You sound a bit like an overzealous lit teacher. Do you want that report double-spaced?


Why are you guys hanging out in a thread about a Sorkin show, especially one which has a writer as one of the main characters, if you aren't interested in writing?

I don't get it.

Jan


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Why are you guys hanging out in a thread about a Sorkin show, especially one which has a writer as one of the main characters, if you aren't interested in writing?
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> Jan


Clearly because DeepGeek Battlestar 9 or whatever show they are hold in high esteem is unavailable for discussion.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

marksman said:


> Clearly because DeepGeek Battlestar 9 or whatever show they are hold in high esteem is unavailable for discussion.


Ironically, Jan is one of DeepGeek Battlestar 9's biggest fans...


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Not understanding why the Eli subplot is in "The Wrap Party" is kinda like somebody saying "I watched Gray's Anatomy and it was boring -- why should I care about a bunch of doctors?"

I'm not saying you have to be a sports fan to watch _Sports Night_ or a policy wonk to watch _The West Wing_, but if you are gonna watch those shows, you have to be willing to accept some sports talk or some policy wonkitude.

Jan


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> I don't buy that theory because he simply made reference to "Who's on First" during the tour, fully expecting it to be something they'd be able to relate to. However, I think he was shocked they'd never heard it and realized that this might be something they would appreciate and did whatever he did to get a copy of it.


Well, I'm guessing that every time he gives somebody a tour of the studio, he mentions "Who's on First" - he's a comedian, and that routine is perhaps the most famous comedy routine in the history of comedy. The record would be a natural gift to give his father as a souvenir. Perhaps the reason he was so shocked was not so much that he couldn't believe that his father never heard of the routine, but that he couldn't believe that his father never heard of the routine he had bought for his father as a souvenir.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

madscientist said:


> ...IMO this episode was much, much better than the others and I hope it stays this good. Cheers!


I was so close to deleting my SP, but I watched the last two eps over the last two days, and this one was outstanding. The SP stays.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> I was so close to deleting my SP, but I watched the last two eps over the last two days, and this one was outstanding. The SP stays.


It's even better when you watch it a second time.

Jan


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> You told me WHO the story was about, but I asked WHAT the episode about.
> 
> And there are three main themes (at least) which run through the entire episode.
> 
> ...


Huh? In your mind is everyone who disagrees with you the same person or something? The only comment I had about the plots was that they didn't all fit together like you claimed. There were multiple unrelated plots in the episode. Just because you can't appreciate one plot does not mean you can't appreciate the show. It's not black or white. If you ever read or watch literary or film criticism you'll know what I mean. Critics can take issue with minor or even major portions of a work and still find it compelling overall.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Huh? In your mind is everyone who disagrees with you the same person or something? The only comment I had about the plots was that they didn't all fit together like you claimed. There were multiple unrelated plots in the episode. Just because you can't appreciate one plot does not mean you can't appreciate the show. It's not black or white. If you ever read or watch literary or film criticism you'll know what I mean. Critics can take issue with minor or even major portions of a work and still find it compelling overall.


I asked a question of 7thton which you chose to comment upon. So yes, I should have said *7thton* said WHO the episode was about, not WHAT the episode was about. Thanks for the correction.

However, I still contend that the episode is not a random collection of unrelated sub-plots, that they form one coherent whole, in a way we don't usually see on television.

Let me pick up a comment from earlier in the thread about the sub-plot with Tom and his parents:



SoBelle said:


> ... showed the many ways in which we can perceive our loved ones and how we respond often to those perceptions rather than the actual moment


If you look carefully, you'll find this motif -- people reacting to a perception rather than to the moment -- repeats in almost every sub-plot.

The episode is also linked together by these ideas:


recognition
belonging (or not belonging)
being part of history / tradition

It's all about people being recognized for their true talents and true selves, of finding the place where they belong. Eli's subplot makes use of all three motifs and is the key to the entire episode.

Jan


----------

