MovieChat Forums > Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (2006) Discussion > Thread for people who dislike Studio 60.

Thread for people who dislike Studio 60.

posted 17 years ago by b-legit
57 replies | jump to latest

Since this message board seems to attract big fans of Studio 60 who are distraught at its cancellation, here's a chance for people who hated the show to sound off.

Personally, I thought the show was hard to watch. Way too preachy with unlikable characters. Some other thoughts:

- The Matt/Harriet romance subplot was a complete dud, since both characters were so annoying. I found myself not caring whether they got together or not, just that they'd shut up and stop talking to one another.

- Amanda Peet apparently can't project any other emotion besides "smug."

- Aaron Sorkin repeated attempts to lecture the viewer on current events (see Nate Corddry's explanation to his red-state parents on why making Iraq jokes is okay, or Matthew Perry's character's diatribes against organized religion). We get it, Aaron. Maybe focus less on rants on more on making a likable characters besides Timothy Busfield and Mark McKinney.

- Danny's pursuit of a pregnant Jordan was downright creepy.

So as you can tell, I'm not the least bit saddened that Studio 60 is off the air. Maybe I'm too demanding, but shouldn't an hour-long drama about a sketch comedy show at least include a few funny parts? Each episode felt like like a trip to the dentist. It made me appreciate 30 Rock that much more.

Feel free to add on.

[–] charleycarey 15 years ago

Its simple. If you like Aaaron Sorkin's style then probably you liked the show. If you don't like his style, you probably didn't like the show. I am not saying one side is more right than the other. just stating an observation.

[–] april_rain 15 years ago

Its not that simple. I think Studio 60 disappointed even the loyal Sorkin fans. I am a big fan of sorkin's style. I am a great fan of "The West Wing" and even "Sportsnight" .

The pilot episode was brilliant. He grabbed our attention right away. The very first scene was a major crisis, he introduced razor sharp characters coming together to save the day. I enjoyed the following episodes when production and writing were the main theme, while issues like standards, focus groups, media scandals,and romantic tension etc were addressed in a side plot.
Somewhere down the path, the wheels came off the rails, as the focus completely shifted to things that are way over the realm of Studio/TV production.
The side plots like Macau storyline, Nevada day, Tom-Lucy stories, Cal's viper/cayote problems seemed more interesting and fun than the main theme.
The god-awful romantic/ER/Jordan's-missteps-and-mumbling storylines sucked the life out of every episode.

Interesting characters became caricatures just to be verbally knocked down and then saved by the heros, Matt and Danny.
Its not like Sorkin hasn't done this before. he does create a strawman character once in a while just to put himself on a soapbox and knock them down with his opinion. In Studio 60, he was either standing on a soap box or lying down on the therapy couch. No wonder it got tiresome.

Amanda Peet being miscast is a minor issue. Even TWW and SN had occasional clunkers and weak characters/actors, but Sorkin always gave the very best of him. He definitely blew a great chance with Studio 60. No doubt about that. I feel really bad for the actors. They did their best to rise above the script.

[–] schwarzman 15 years ago

Even Sorkin himself said that he made mistakes in the writing of the show and it is kind of obvious when you look back: storylines that were forgotten. Romances that suddenly manifest with no pretext.

HOWEVER, I still think the show was awesome and Sorkin's next show (which he says will ALSO be about the cast crew of a TV show) he will right those wrongs.

"I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

[–] Xtremegt2 14 years ago

I wished for so much more from this show. It just felt like it was horribly miscast. With the West Wing, almost everyone wasn't well known except for Rob Lowe and Martin Sheen. This time, it feels like the show is polluted by established actors. The worst offense: Matthew Perry.

It's not even like he does a bad job. He does decently enough, but he can't get the stench of Friends off of him. And it's not especially in regard to how well he ends up working in the show. It's not bad. Sometimes the story works to his strengths with the comedy, but feels off with the drama.

My problem is there's no way to sell it. I wonder how a show of this pedigree barely lasts a season before everyone's ready for it to be cancelled and he's a big reason why. The backlash from the massive hype the Friends finale had meant that all the Friends actors should've went into hiding. (Except Aniston, since Brad Pitt dumping kept her in tabloids for years and kept her movie career afloat)

It gets harder to take the show seriously whenever he's given drama. Even moreso when we're supposed to view him as a writer. Bradley Whitford is another problem. This show didn't need him. West Wing fans could only be let down by his casting as the #2.

You've got Matthew Perry and D.L. Hughley (who just can't really do this role) and who's gonna watch that show? Neither of them are draws and both pull down the credibility of the drama. This was before his CNN stuff and people realized he was smart. Even if they knew that, drama's is not his strength and Sorkin's language isn't for everyone.

D.L. was stuck in this place where he didn't have a variety show type of humor so the live show bits didn't really work and didn't have good drama skills, so the rest just kinda hanged there. Nate Corddry had a similar problem. They'd have them enter conversations in tandem to hide their weak points. If either of them was Toby or Sam Seaborn good, this show would've had more of a chance.

Sarah Paulson's the only one of so-called 'big three' who could handle the comedy and the drama at a Sorkin level. She's the real find of the show and it's the others who can't match her.

Then there's Amanda Peet. She really grows on you, but this isn't what she does. She's good looking. It gets pretty hard to take her seriously, but she does a better job than most of the show. She's just not enough. People who hype this show, should look at it reasonably. It's much much easier to convince people you know to watch the West Wing than it is this show.

It's hard to point out people who do a great job on the show, because this tries to cram twice as many characters in as West Wing did, with no real focus or expectation from any episode.

Where do you focus? Where does comedy come from? I think they might've found more luck focusing on each new guest host of the show and how that changes the priorities of each person. That'd be better than focusing on how to piss off the religious right, or how important it is that Amanda Peet's ex-husband sucks.

You know that feeling when you really get into something and try to show your friends, and keep saying 'just wait, the good part's coming.'

That's how I feel about Studio 60. Sometimes it comes together. Most of the time, it doesn't. It feels closer to Las Vegas than it does West Wing.

__________________
Why so serious? It's not like I get to enjoy the Oscar.

[–] thelveres 15 years ago

This show kinda failed its true, but 30 Rock not only failed, you couldn't even feel it trying..

[–] xxo_carolinee 14 years ago

LOL

The Matt/Harriet romance was excellent. It's because they didn't seem to have the best personalities that it was so interesting.

Amanda Peet was supposed to be 'smug' in this role.

Aaron Sorkin enjoys current events and politics. So basically he can focus on whatever he wants. 'The West Wing' was solely focused on politics and it was a very successful series.

Danny loved Jordan, and his pursuit was loving, he wanted to take care of her.

If you hated it so much, why did you watch it?
Why are you on this board?
And there were funny parts, you just had to listen.
Yes, they talked a lot, but that was part of the charm?

ALSO, what's 30 rock? LOL, I keep reading about it on these boards, what is it?

[–] YEAHxthree 14 years ago

Y'know, I asked the same thing about Studio 60 a couple days ago. So I went here and realized why I had never heard of this show.

Because it's a one season "so 3 years ago" forgettable failure of a show.

30 Rock is in its 4th season. Get with the times!

[–] Krys78 14 years ago

People can hate what they want but I loved all of Sorkin's shows, I loved how he wrote the behind the scenes of shows and of course The West Wing was his best ever. I loved Sports Night because we get to see the stuff we see on camera all the time but never the struggles, relationships and drama of those type shows, with Sports Night you see the aired stuff and the drama of the characters. It put a different perspective of what actors, atheletes and celebrities may deal with when the cameras arent rolling. The West Wing because we never get to see the White House and its full capasity, the drama and relations. And finally Studio 60 same thing. It seems Sorkin wants the public to see what can/does occur when the cameras are off and some of it comes from his real life experiences. People thought TWW was hard to follow because the general audience doesn't know the political side of life as much. I learned a lot from each of these shows, especially TWW but I think some are being unfair to judge one or the other as both Sports Night and Studio 60 didn't have a chance to develop or build up like The West Wing did. You cant compare because each show was different and the only show that really shined (IMHO) was TWW, I think the awards stand for themselves. 98 out of 172 including 28 Emmys.

Surprisingly Helpful Equation Link Differential Optimize Numerator :D

[–] eagle_eyed 14 years ago

Not that anybody will come back and read this but after reading the entire thread, this is my take on most of it.

first everyone is allowed to have their own opinions. these can not be right or wrong. They are personal. So to each there own. I do feel that many of the critics on this show are people not "getting it". I say this and mean one thing when most would read it the other way.

Let me explain. some critics of the show are the sketches are not funny. I go yeah but when did we ever see an entire sketch? Maybe the cold open with the song, otherwise it was a quick clip. I think most of the idea's could have been really funny like the Jesus Christ as standards sketch. What a great idea. But we never get to see the whole thing, just a bit of the dry run through. Or people saying it was to preachy, and not understanding that half of what the show was doing was just trying people to get to talk about it. If it was Religion or Politics maybe the show came off to far left, but it was not meant to be this is the right way, this is the wrong way. Go back and look at Nevada Day. Who came off the best? The right wing "Back water judge".

I do think there were mistakes in the show, and it could have been better, but there was way too much good here to think about any of the mistakes.

People also were saying it was ironic after the show started with a guy talking about what is wrong with TV that the show is crap. Dislike the show or not you missed the point of the mans rant. It was that TV today is about glits and glam instead of good writing. That what sells is TV that is all flash. The type os stuff that we here about being pitched "Search and Destroy" or that show the station ends up making with the guy who wants to appologize to the guy he shot who ended up becoming a doctor. Versus the show that has real content about real events. It is trying to rip a little bit of reality TV.

What I am trying to say is you can dislike this show if you want for what ever reasons you want. You are 100% allowed to do what ever you want. But at least try to be on point a bit.

[–] shlubby_has_taste 12 years ago

Since this is a "dislike" thread, I always like to stay on-topic. My only complaint (I'm only about 2/3 of the way through the series) is the over-emphasis on the Matt/Harriet relationship & his "demons". I don't care about his issues--just want to be entertained. That takes away & has no value whatsoever.

I watch alotta TV...but that doesn't mean I don't have a job.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sfdyoung-1 9 years ago

The problem with this show was that its humor depended on intelligence, wit, and cleverness, which is a forgotten art. Nowadays, audiences seem to want laugh track-worthy shows that value insults and slapstick over wit, and base their characters on caricatures and stereotypes rather than actual human beings.

[–] moonlight100 11 years ago

I think this concept could be handled much better by a person who actually runs shows the way they normally are run, with many people writing/contributing to the episodes- not someone like Sorkin who writes every episode of the shows he creates. Sorkin is a great writer, but this was not a concept he could have sustained for longer than one season and arguably did not even sustain it over one season.

Another critique of this, which I think is fair, is that real improv sketch actors were not cast for the parts of the sketch actors. Paulson was horrible compared to someone like Kristin Wiig or Amy Poehler (who could have done much better with both the comedic and dramatic aspects of that character). I can see why Sorkin did not do that because sketch actors love improvisation and Sorkin likes his writing to be read word from word. I'm guessing he didn't want to deal with improv actors who would want to improvise and not do it (the characters, the in-show sketches) exactly as Sorkin wanted them to. Which brings me to my last problem with the show- why in the absolute heck was Mathew Perry's character practically the only writer? In real sketch shows, the actors write/collaborate with other writers to write the sketches they are in. It's really, really unrealistic for someone to write a sketch show every week practically alone. Sketch comedians are all about improv, which is supposed to be all about making your partner look good. Sketch comedy thrives on collaboration. The lack of collaboration and other points of view is IMHO the reason this show wore thin quickly and did not expand well on the depths of the characters. For this show, at least, Sorkin should have had faith in other writers who had different and diverse experiences writing on a TV show. This should have been a show that portrayed many different writers' perspectives on the Entertainment business and how it is and isn't perceived as art, not just Sorkin's.

[–] junaidn 10 years ago

Agreed. This is a hilariously awful show. Sorkin has somehow found a way to make an even less funny parody of SNL.

It's cringe worthy, like watching a car accident. You simply can't look away.

I think the reason why the West Wing (another show I loathed) worked was because the stakes were higher. Running a country versus running a silly little sketch program are two different things.

[–] b-legit 9 years ago

It's been precisely 8 years since I started this thread, and I feel exactly the same way.

I watched The Newsroom, and another commenter made a good point - the preachiness there (and on The West Wing) was tolerable because Important Things were at stake. This is a show about the production of a comedy show, for ----'s sake. I've never seen a more miserable collection of people, and they're supposed to be making America laugh.

Matthew Perry is the obvious Sorkin surrogate. Former addict, given complete control of his own show, lecturing everyone at how dumb we'be become -- what a terrible place to work (both on this fictional show and in real life).

I reiterate my original comments about Nate Cordry's arc with his red state parents visiting the show. Man, those scenes are almost unbearable to watch. I get that the mid-2000's were dark times for liberals, but this comes across as some anti-Fox News fan fiction, and in a pretty lowbrow way.

I think it's telling that this show has had no real lasting impact, save for the handful of people to pick up a DVR each year. The 30 Rock comparisons are unfortunate, but it's interesting how a half-hour comedy show produced fuller characters than this hour long, serious drama.

See everyone in December 2023 for my next thoughts on this show.