MovieChat Forums > Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (2006) Discussion > Love Matthew Perry but...

Love Matthew Perry but...

posted 15 years ago by Singing_Sapphire
36 replies | jump to latest

he was terribly miscast in this show. I almost think the show would've lasted longer than one season if only there was a different actor in his spot. He's just not endearing as Matt (actually he's downright annoying), and he doesn't seem able to keep up with the pace of the dialogue and act at the same time. I get the feeling he's just reading his lines. I don't know...I love Friends, but I can't stand any of his scenes in Studio 60.

If anyone has any reasons why he's actually not that bad in this role, please list them here so I can enjoy the rest of the episodes a little more. :)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Scott-101 14 years ago

I don't think the Matt Alvey character was likable at all. He was hot and cold with people, condescending to people on his staff, he endlessly debated religion as if it were interesting. His vitriole toward Ricky and Ron was unjustified

www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner

[–] Krys78 14 years ago

Scott I saw your post about the blog on a different thread, I take it that was your blog? Why I say so is you spelt Matt's last name the same as that blogger. BTW its MATT ALBIE! To argue with the OP, you are out of your fricken mind to think Matthew Perry was miscast, one it was written for Perry, and like a person upthread he didn't want to do it at first because he didn't think he was up to the task as a drama actor, after Friends. He blew me away with his performance! He underestimated himself big time and I am glad Aaron, Bradley and Thomas talked him into it. So many things went wrong for AS from the start, one he should've never have come back to NBC, too much history and drama behind the scenes, two he should never have pitched while Zucker was CEO of NBC, and three ABC or CBS would've done a better job of advertizing S60, and had a better press tour too.

Surprisingly Helpful Equation Link Differential Optimize Numerator :D

[–] Scott-101 14 years ago

Yep, that was my blog post.
I don't know if I said this in my last post. But the advertising was amazing for S60. It was their flagship program that year and they had great press for it. I was working at a movie theater at the time and we were handing out popcorn bags with Studio 60 pics on them. The commercials before the movie previews in the movies were also advertising Studio 60.

Everyone knew of the show's existence which is why so many people tuned in opening night and why the reviews were initially pretty good. It was after watching a few shows that the critics realized it wasn't that good.

Your mileage may vary but I think it was Sorkin's fault and not the networks and I think that's what a lot of critics have said. It's well-known that Sorkin had very free reign to do what he wanted (at least compared to most show runners) and he even got malicious and chose to use his show as a personal workspace to sort out his past and used characters on his show to launch thinly vielled attacks on former writing partners, studio heads and his ex-girlfriend.

I don't know whether Perry was miscast or not. Perry is a good actor but the character was not as admirable a person as the writing recognized.

And yeah, I don't spell things correctly all the time. Sorry if that offended your sensibilities. I think spelling the names of fictional characters incorrectly is at least better than spelling the name of a real person incorrectly (although I've probably done that too at some point or another)

www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner

[–] Krys78 14 years ago

You dont sound very legit when you cant spell the names correctly. Plus I meant overall advertizing. I work in the business and I know they did not advertise the show enough after it debuted. Very few promos inbetween episodes and then very little confirmation when they switched times and days. But that is NBC for ya as they failed with TWW too when they switched days, very little knowledge to the audience about that change.

Surprisingly Helpful Equation Link Differential Optimize Numerator :D

[–] Scott-101 14 years ago

You make a compelling case for Matthew Perry. I think he did good for what was written to him. And you're right, Sarah Paulson was very miscast.

If you look at the whole situation from an I'm a fan of Aaron Sorkin point of view and I sympathize with him as a human being, than yes, I see Studio 60 as a show plagued by a few mistakes that had some great things going for it.

There's no show I like discussing more than Studio 60, I'll say that, becasue I simultaneously loved and hated it. It had faults, it clearly had potential to be great. There was genius in it, I agree.
www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner

[–] cvcjdev 14 years ago

They did go all out advertising for the show initially, but the problem was they got it all wrong! And it wasn't Perry's fault, but it was about him. The promo monkeys made it play like it was all comedy, not a good way to entice people into a drama. I just saw a promo for Perry's new ABC show and it was the exact same line, BUT it is a comedy!

Critics loved the show and the network loved the show, but the network bailed when Faux news attacked. Then there was no more support. Though the back 9 did get picked up after Roger Friedman announced its imminent cancellation in Oct.

[–] Scott-101 14 years ago

Who's Roger Friedman?

www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner

[–] bonfireboy03 12 years ago

Have to disagree with you. I think he is perfect for the part. I actually find him endearing as I think he does a nice job of portraying the conflict of trying to hide a very good heart behind a prickly exterior. I think he does just fine with the pacing of the dialogue and displays a much wider range of visual/facial expression that I would have given him credit for. Forgive me but I can't imagine anyone else in the role.

[–] juviejay 12 years ago

I doubt the OP is still reading this, but if he/she is, this is my take.

I didn't find Matthew Perry to be a natural fit as a comedy writer. I can't think of someone who would be, but Perry just doesn't fit my profile of what a comedy writer is. He's too normal, too good looking, if you will. I mean, he's not Brad Pitt, but he's closer to that than he is to, say, Steve Buschemi (sorry Steve Bushcemi).

If I were to pick someone to play a comedy writer, it would probably be someone who actually wrote. I don't believe Perry is a writer, or even a comedian. I could be wrong on this.

I'd have chosen someone like, I don't know, I can't think of anyone. Someone very smart yet not all together there emotionally. No one comes to mind off hand. Hum. Best I can come up with is Jim Carrey or Stephen Colbert. But that's not exactly what I'm looking for.

Having said this, however, I did find myself liking Perry by the end of the series. Was never a huge fan of Friends, or Perry, but after this series, I did start to like him.

He showed a dramatic depth that I didn't know he had. His arguments with "Harriet Hayes" about religion were inspired, I thought. I also thought he handled the "drug use" aspect pretty well. Did I read that he had a drug problem at some point? Maybe that informed his performance.

Anyway, I think a good writer can be a great help to an actor, and there's few as good as Sorkin. So, yeah, Perry was good IMO.

Jesus was not a zombie!