Did it fail, because people saw the name "Matthew Perry" and assumed it would be a comedy? The show is interesting and entertaining, but it's definitely not funny.
IMHO, that was a huge part of the reason. The NBC promo monkeys created ads that touted the return of Perry and made it look like a comedy. However, the numbers were better than a lot of shows NBC kept, it was just expectations had been so high and the cost was huge.
I think the show has moments of out-loud hilarity! The "Animal Kingdom Axis of Evil" beneath the stage? The robo-baby gets decapitated? I think Studio 60 suffered in the same way Sports Night did; it didn't easily snap into a niche for us. I think people were expecting more humor, but I don't think because of Matthew Perry. If you look at the cast you'd likely assume it was a comedy; then when you hear it's about a late night comedy show, well you could see how someone might assume comedy. Personally, when I see Sorkin the only expectation I have is quality.
Well, i was someone who tuned into the first couple episodes of this show.
I'd say i probably watched... 6 or 7?
Here is the major issue I had with the show. I wasn't expecting it to be a comedy.. To be honest i didn't know much about it going in, i just thought the concept seemed interesting, and Sorkin had gotten such good press on THE WEST WING that i figured i would give it a shot.
The opening speech from Judd Hirsch was INCREDIBLE, and completely summed up my issues with TV.
Now these 2 schmucks were brought in to produce an incredible, cutting edge comedy show. The one FATAL flaw? None of what they did was remotely cutting edge, incredible or funny.
Did i expect the show itself to be a comedy? No, i expected a drama. However the show WITHIN a show is SUPPOSED to be funny, and it just wasn't. Not in the slightest.
Honestly? In my opinion the show fails for one very simple reason:
It drops the main plot for the "romantic coupling" way too fast.
In the first few episodes, it's amazing, it talks about the hidden aspects of making a live tv show, it presents the problems of a team that doesn't know if it will live to see the next day, it shows how management deals with a crisis... It's cool... It's television about television, and it does so with some intelligent humor and clever references. It's good, it's very good at that... It has its share of personal trouble, that fits the characters quite well and even has a romantic tension that doesn't hurt studio 60.
And suddenly (and it almost seems a test group provoked plot twist) it turns to a point in which is ALL about the couples. This couple has a trust problem, that couple cannot coexist, this couple this, that couple that, and the tv-aspect of it that WAS the main plot, just becomes a mess. And when they try to make a comeback of the tv plot they just fail (the nevada episodes for instance are a freaking 2 hour comic relief with some good jokes in the middle, but completely unexpected and out of place, full force shenanigans).
In my view, it has nothing to do with the humor, the show just forgets what it was doing really soon, and in the end, after seeing the first season I just think "it started so damn well, and now it's just a romantic comedy with an unusual setting".
The show was too much about religion vs. atheism -- heck, I'm an atheist and even to me it got old -- and too much about freedom of the press. And then a bunch of other stuff in-between people that had nothing to do with running a comedy show.
On the West Wing, every week there would be serious, interesting issues about politics. I felt like I was learning something. There was a bit of that in Studio 60, but too much of the same topic.
As for whether the show was funny enough... the last 3 epsiodes were pure drama. I'm not saying that the actors should not have expressed real pain in these scenarios (kidnapping, death in childbirth), but neither has much to do with running a comedy show and neither lends itself to humor.
Johnny Monsarrat Consulting. All content by Jon Monsarrat!
As I have posted elswhere, I think whether the show was funny or not misses the point.
The purpose of Studio 60 wasn't to show case sketch humour (in the way I understand 30 Rock might...).
One of the central themes was: how does a show specialising in political and religious satire deal with an event like 9/11? The kidnapping story was very much cenral to this threme given that Tom had just done a sketch about `the thin-skinned prophet' when his brother was kidnapped.
Personally, I find that theme very compelling, although I would agree that the West Wing was better at canvassing multiple political issues (sometimes simultaneously).
By the way, some of the sketch comedy on the show was funny. I thought the rehearsal of the `Jesus H Christ' as the Standards Committee member very funny. The guy doing Tom Cruise and Nick Cage impressions was pretty funny too. However, as I said, I don't think the quality of the sketches is that important in the overall scheme of the show.
While some of you have some great points IMHO I think that you may not be looking at this as a season but as a whole series. Most of the couples stuff was wrapped up by the end of season one. Danny and Jordan and Rebecca the baby, Matt and Harry seemed to be good and settled. Even Tom and Lucy were on firm ground. Now take the West Wing (my ATF show) but some issues there were over played too like post sorkin in the 6th season the election storylines were 70% and life in the White House was 30% a very unfair mix if you look at reelection when sorkin was in the house in season three.
Anyways I think most of you have valid points but maybe looking at S60 as a long ass mini series instead of something that started out with a life span of longer than 22 eps. But got too expensive to last.. Altho every time I watch like now I so wish had gotten the several years it should have.
Maybe I'm right, maybe not but it is what it sounds like to me..