Love Matthew Perry but... - Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (2006) Discussion

[–] peter_lpool 15 years ago

"I love Friends, but I can't stand any of his scenes in Studio 60"

Thats the reason why you feel Matt is miscast. You see him and expect Chandler, you don't get him and you are disappointed.

I also love Friends, but I also love Studio 60. I like Matt and think he does well in Studio 60, but I can see past the Friends thing.

I don't think many people could. I'd imagine a lot of people were lured to Studio 60 purely on the back of Perry and they weren't happy with his character. Thats just my take on it.

reply

[–] Singing_Sapphire 15 years ago

Thanks for your response. That makes sense, I guess. Although, I was lured into the show because of Bradley Whitford/The West Wing producers and definitely not Matthew Perry (as the only thing I've ever actually enjoyed him in is Friends). And I also don't feel that attached to the character of Danny, but I know that is because I loved Whitford as Josh so much. But I can at least stand his scenes and obviously he knows how to keep up with the dialogue...

reply

[–] chrisdoyle197 15 years ago

Your kinda proving the opposing point here. You say THE REASON you were lured to the show was Bradley Whitford. You can't deny the resemblance between Josh and Danny. I'm not saying they're supposed to be the same guy in 2 different shows but C'MON!! Same actor, same creator. I think they knew they had a good thing with Bradley playing Josh and that's why he was cast in the first place. Matt Perry on the other hand - different creator, COMPLETELY different character. This is of course all just my opinion. Is Matthew Perry and great actor, maybe not, are you giving him an unbiased critique, most definitely not. For the record, I prefer Matt Perry in this show, but I also think he was one of the more talented "Friends".

reply

[–] jeremy2020-1 15 years ago

I really have to disagree with that statement. A great actor will not be typecast. He may have been perfect for the one role he played, but that doesn't make him a great actor.

There's plenty of actors who have played iconic roles and have managed to have careers that go beyond them without people "being upset that they didn't get the character they were expecting".

He was an actor who wasn't able to play this role and thus miscast.

reply

[–] charleycarey 15 years ago

Totally disagree. i think Matthew Perry was PERFECT for the role. i didn't have a problem with any casting but i thought he was the best casted character.

reply

[–] hornakapopolis 15 years ago

I've never watched a full episode of Friends because it was never my cup of tea, but I had stayed away from Matthew Perry projects because of his character on the shows and in things like Whole Nine Yards.

I watched this because of Sorkin and liked Perry a lot.

I know a ton of people like him as the character type he played in Friends and I liked him a lot here, so I found a new respect for him as an actor.

reply

[–] toddp-10 14 years ago

___________________

i think Matthew Perry was PERFECT for the role

________________________

Absolutely. The whole cast was perfect.

reply

[–] Rooney72 14 years ago

Gotta agree that Matthew Perry was very good in this role, and well cast. Here a plays a more substantial person than Chandler, and really pulls it off. I saw no effort to keep up with the dialogue.

reply

[–] toddp-10 14 years ago

He was great. I just watched the series again from start to finish and I kept thinking, a lot, how has this guy not have a hit show? And his small part in West Wing was fantastic too.

He really needs to toss off the silly antics that made him a star in Friends and do something more on these lines.

reply

[–] FairlyTwisted 14 years ago

I agree, he was great. He kept that "Chandler sarcasm", but lost the "Chandler insecurities" and it worked out great. But the entire cast was great, including Amanda Peet who I usually don't like.

(•_•)

reply

[–] kjmcmaho 14 years ago

I think Matthew Perry was cast perfectly! I am a huge Friends fan as well, and one of the main reasons I started watching Studio 60 when it debuted was for Perry. I think his acting was better than it ever was on Friends on S60. I agree that he kept some of Chandlers sarcasm, wit, and charm, but when I watch Matt Albie on screen I never think I'm watching "Chandler."

reply

[–] anne0 15 years ago

Whoa - I totally agree with cyclones. I liked him in Friends and I thought he was GREAT in this role as well. Two totally different characters. He and Bradley Whitford are the two excellent draws for me.

I'm kinda stunned by the 'can't keep up with the dialogue' observation. Matt is an industry veteran who's overworked & stressed at this time, and I think that comes through.

reply

[–] april_rain 15 years ago

Actually, I had the opposite reaction. after watching him in Studio 60, I thought his talent was criminally underused in 'Friends' and movies that demanded him to be like "Chandler". I was totally impressed by his dramatic acting. I think he played his role perfectly.

reply

[–] Chrysanthepop 15 years ago

I don't think he can ever be miscast. He's terrific in everything I've seen him in.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

reply

[–] aliw135 15 years ago

Aaron Sorkin was gonna give this thing up unless Matthew Perry came onboard, he wrote it for Perry, and orginally Perry wasn't gonna do it.

Hardly miscast.

reply

[–] JohnnyKwango 15 years ago

It think this really showed Matthew Perry as a versatile actor. A someone above said, I never once thought of Chandler Bing. For me, Perry was a real highlight of this show and was perfect for Matt Albie.

I'm not saying he's Kevin Spacey; I just think he was great for that part and epitomised the character as it would appear to have been written..

reply

[–] plasppus 14 years ago

I personally love him in this. Maybe you just don't like his humor outside of Friends, maybe you don't like the traits Sorkin gave him. When you think about it every character in Sorkin's shows have essential a bunch of the same traits, some traits more prominent in some characters than others.

For me, Studio 60 was my introduction to Aaron Sorkin so it holds a special place in my heart, because for me all the rehashed plot points from his previous shows were fresh with this one. The experience of watching it blew me away, I felt and still feel like its one of the best shows I've ever seen, but again, if I'd seen the West Wing before it, I wouldn't have been so blown away considering I'd be familiar with Sorkin's work.

Alright, I'm ramblin'. My point is its a great show and I think Perry is awesome in it.

reply

[–] climbfall78 14 years ago

I dunno...I think Studio 60 was his best work to date. It showed that he can be more than the lovable sarcastic next door.

"It's takes a village, jackass!"--Carson Kressley (Queer Eye)

reply

[–] toddp-10 14 years ago

_______________
I think Studio 60 was his best work to date
__________________

Agreed. He was great fun in Friends don't get me wrong. But this and his guest on West Wing was outstanding.

reply

[–] Xtremegt2 14 years ago

I think him being miscast has less to do with whether or not he can keep up with the dialogue. To be honest, I thought he and Brad's characters were too alike to the point where it was like Brad was just talking to himself half of the time.

I wish it was more Josh and Toby and less Josh and Josh.

Him being miscast is in reference to Friends. That show was on 24 hours a day back in 06, let alone the absolutely massive finale a couple years earlier. You can't sell, Chandler does high-brow drama. Not by himself. Not next to Amanda Peet does high-brow drama. And then D.L. Hughley had the same problem.

You had 2 comedians and an overrated comedy actress. Where's your Martin Sheen? Where's your Rob Lowe? John Spencer? Even Bradley Whitford...because Danny is a shell of Josh.

I can't understand how they lost Dule Hill to Psych. He would've been a great Simon Styles. Just like how Peter Krause would've been a great Matt Albie.

I swear, those 2 casting changes would've been enough to save the show. Krause and Hill would've been enough to connect to people and steady the ratings.

But at the end of the day it's the writing. There's two different measures people seem to be working on. The one is personal. That's where people call it excellent and genius. The other is practical. When you've watched enough TV shows that only lasted one season, you get a better idea of what's born to fail.

Studio 60's writing was born to fail. They had a two-part filler episode 5 episodes in. From the first 10 minutes, the writing was there, but the story had so little focus. It's like he had a scrapbook of great dialogue and just taped it all together and hoped it made sense.

It never felt right enough to hook people...so it didn't. Perry never felt right enough, Peet not quite either. And don't say I'm wrong. Sorkin was NBC. He brought them a sack of Emmy's and a lot of prestige. The only person who they bent over for more was Leno and his show still only lasted one season.

14 million tuned in for the pilot. It's one of the best forgotten TV shows, but not good enough to make it's budget make sense.

reply

[–] toddp-10 14 years ago

I thought he and Brad's characters were too alike to the point where it was like Brad was just talking to himself half of the time.

I will agree with that. They were written pretty similar. But that's Sorken.

I can't understand how they lost Dule Hill to Psych. He would've been a great Simon Styles. Just like how Peter Krause would've been a great Matt Albie.

That I disagree with 100%. I dont think either of those two would have been good for the roles at all. Two awful choices in my opinion

14 million tuned in for the pilot.

Wow. Something most certainly did not grab peoples attention. I have watched it from start to finish 3 times. And I liked every scene. But I was clearly the minority

reply

[–] anne0 14 years ago

I can't understand how they lost Dule Hill to Psych. He would've been a great Simon Styles. Just like how Peter Krause would've been a great Matt Albie.

From toddp-10: That I disagree with 100%. I dont think either of those two would have been good for the roles at all. Two awful choices in my opinion

Agree with todd - the casting of Matthrew Perry and DL Hughley was just about genious. This was a great show not marketed well by NBC, maybe too costly.

reply

[–] plasppus 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure it failed because it took 5 episodes to really take off, those 5 laid the ground work and after that the show was incredible. Somewhere during those first 5 episodes, people started tuning into the light-hearted and similarly themed "30 Rock" which is, if you ask me, nowhere near as good as "Studio 60" was.

reply

[–] toddp-10 14 years ago

I think they are both great. And besides the behind a comedy show premise, are completely different. but I suspect that many people tuned into S60 thinking they would get a zany Mathew Perry comedy

30 rock took a long time to get off the ground in the ratings. They stood by and let the show gain the fans. But it was probably a ton cheaper too.

I firmly believe that had S60 gotten a second season it may have gotten more fans. Hard to say. It may just be one of those shows that is not for mass consumption.

reply

[–] plasppus 14 years ago

If it was watched from episode 5 on it would've gotten more fans and definitely had a 2nd season. They lost all the viewers in the first 5 episodes.

reply

[–] magicscoobysnacks 14 years ago

The pilot started bleeding viewers halfway through. I think a major reason is that Matthew Perry was one of the most prominent things about the show's advertising, people show up to see that, and he doesn't really appear for a long time. Truthfully the viewers probably started to leave before the 2nd half, but it didn't show up because they get credit for all the eyeballs that tuned in for the beginning of the show. He needed to somehow be seen right at the top after the Wes meltdown. It didn't help that the promos for the show put a clip from another episode that made it sound like it was supposed to be a comedy. The one where Harriet bursts into the writers room after finding out about Jeanie. I think they misrepresented the tone of the show. Sports Night wasn't sold properly either. Tommy talks about the upfronts for that on the SN dvd extras. They picked a clip that was just wrong for it.

I heard that Matthew was told to play him the way he did (frequently kind of down and an antagonizing jerk with Harriet) by Sorkin and Schlamme. I think they wanted to contrast with Harriet, and actually have people look more favorably on her even though they might agree with Matt's politics and religious views. People go 'Well I'm not religious, but I'm siding with Harriet. Wow, didn't expect that.' It's not a terrible idea, but it worked too well and didn't do justice to Harriet who should've been likable or not on her own, not as Matt's love interest. She was really viewed more for her role in "Matt & Harriet" than on her own. Even her interview with Christine Lahti's character involved questions about them or to set her up as the Christian foil to Matt, the Jewish atheist.

"Do you think the world is crawling with Phyllises?"

reply