30 Rock


While they are very different shows, I can't help comparing them. Maybe if Studio 60 would have been a little more like 30 Rock, it wouldn't have gotten cancelled. Why? Both shows have a similar concept, the making of a comedy show, dealing with network executives, ratings, advertisers, actors and writers. However, the tone and the mood are what make them different from each other. 30 Rock is a sitcom, it exaggerates conflict, the humor is light and the characters are clear comedy archetypes. While Studio 60 is more of a drama with humor (smart and sophisticated humor, IMO) with complex characters, interesting and strong conflicts, yet somehow it became boring and it tried too hard to moralize television.

Studio 60 took itself way too seriously for a TV show about making television. The West Wing (also created by Sorkin) was a success because politics are inherently taken seriously and intense drama is expected. 30 Rock became a hit because it was fun to watch outrageous characters doing comedy, not serious people with a moral agenda struggling to change television. Maybe if Studio 60 had had a different approach, lighter and a lot less pretentious, audiences would have kept on watching it. It's a shame it got cancelled because it is a TV gem. It's one of the best written shows I've ever seen (even better than 30 Rock). But they missed the tone, they should've gone for something less complex... more like what Tina Fey did with 30 Rock.

reply

Aaron Sorkin already did what you are suggesting in Sports Night which, like 30 Rock was a half hour sitcom. An hour long program does needs deeper emotional involvement and so maybe the answer is to make it about a different kind of TV show. Like the news, where you can accept the serious attitude more readily. As he is now working on "The Newsroom", maybe it will be his third-time-lucky for a TV series about the behind-the-scenes of a TV program.

reply

I think you've hit the nail on the head. While 30 Rock appears to be the sillier, more absurd depiction of a group of comedy writers, it's probably a lot closer to the truth. The characters in Studio 60 think WAY to highly of themselves. They're producing a vaguely amusing sketch show, and yet they're acting like they work in the White House.

The sketches we see in Studio 60 and 30 Rock are both pretty lame, but the difference is, the show-within-a-show of 30 Rock is supposed to be bad, with TGS constantly being belittled, whereas the writers in Studio 60 believe they are the last bastion of American artistry. Yet the sketches we see are neither funny nor edgy.

Had Sorkin reeled in some of ego and gusto of his characters, and hired some solid comedy writers for the sketches (say, some people from The Onion, a legitimately funny satire publication), the show might have been much better.

Check out SlamDunkStudios.webs.com

reply

You seemed to have missed the point that most of the sketches shown on Studio 60 were during rehearsals and either needed lots of work or were cut entirely.

Sorkin did do exactly as you suggest by bringing in a Kid from the Hall/past SNL writer, who then went on to double as an actor on the show as well.

As for the seriousness of working on a show, I've seen many descriptions of this over the years, most recently in Guttenberg's memoir when he guested on SNL once.

reply

I think you've described this the best. TGS is supposed to be really bad. Studio 60's show is not.

However Saturday Night Live is not supposed to be bad, but I do wonder how seriously the writers take themselves. Probably not quite as seriously as Studio 60, but 30 Rock is way sillier and more absurd than reality likely would be. The truth is going to be in between, both 30 Rock and Studio 60 are extreme versions.

But when you're going extreme, I think people tend to like comedy more than drama. Nobody complains about 30 Rock, or Community, or other comedy shows like that about being realistic. But pretty much all drama shows, people want realism.

I think for Studio 60 to work, the way they wanted it work, the characters would have had to be less extreme. But then we'd have boring characters, and that definitely wouldn't have worked.


Follow my blog Napierslogs' Movie Expositions at http://napierslogs.blogspot.com

reply

Yeah, I think the first few episodes of 30 Rock is what Studio 60 should have been like. The producer of a popular sketch-comedy show suddenly has a new executive barge in to try and "save" a show that doesn't really need saving, forcing them to hire a popular but troubled movie-star, while trying to deal with the resident diva, the cast and a petulant writing-staff.


Actually, putting it like that, it sounds way more Sorkinesque than Studio 60, which was about, as I remember, the greatest writer in the world and his friend, the greatest producer in the world, is hired to run a sketch-show when the old producer flips out. On the cast is the greatest actress in the world, who is the former lover of the greatest writer in the world, and together they make it the greatest sketch-show in the world!

reply

[deleted]

Perhaps because 30 had Tina Fey and we cared about her but did not care as much for Matt Perry.


I guess this is why I have never sat through an entire episode of 30 rock. I feel the exact opposite.

reply

[deleted]

Wow agreed! I couldn't stomach much of 30 Rock. Studio 60 was funny and smart with a real story. 30 Rock was just dumb.

reply

To me, 30 Rock is too close to the format and style of Family Guy. Crazy/Edgy one liners and bunch of cut-aways to goofy clips. All frosting and no cake.

~~~"Who do you think you're dealing with? Guess again."~~~

reply

I just started watching Studio 60, and I wish 30 Rock would have done some plotlines from Studio 60 in their own style.

For example the 3rd episode is about focus groups.
On 30 Rock we only got one cut-away gag about them.
Would have loved to see Jack and Liz fight with them or about them, or try to influence them.

reply