MovieChat Forums > Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (2006) Discussion > Reason why this show was canceled

Reason why this show was canceled

posted 14 years ago by Mlprez13
12 replies | jump to latest

It's pretty simple: it was awful. None of the the characters were believable and most of them weren't even likable. Critics HATED this show, and audiences didn't get it- not because they're not smart TV viewers, but because there wasn't much to get. The shows stilted dialogue and RIDICULOUS storylines (Tom Jeter's brother captured in Afghanistan and his network boss hires a PMC to rescue him.... that's just one of many) just didnt work- the sentiments between characters rang false because a) we didnt really know them and b) it was impossible to relate to them. This show was Sorkin's worst- even he admits that. His style works for shows set in the white house, but no one believes that shows like SNL, which use "I slept with your mother" and other low brow comedy, are run by people who talk and think like that. I like SNL sometimes, but let's be honest- it's not a show for geniuses.

I agree that you can't compare this show and 30 rock- maybe because 30 rock is FUNNY and has likable characters, but mostly bc they shows are TOTALLY different. At the end of the day though, they're different because one show is good, and one show is just...plain....awful. I watched the full season (I'm a TV junkie) but i often felt silly for doing so. I loved SportsNight and the West Wing, as well as other Sorkin work (A Few Good Men, the Social Network), but this show was just bad. It deserved to be canceled. Deal with it.

[–] jerseyd1 14 years ago

You wouldn't know an intelligent show if it bit you on the a$$. Most of the tv watching public is too low brow to appreciate smart writing.
Deal with it.

[–] budikavlan 14 years ago

Critics didn't hate this show--they raved over it before the premiere. Even after it bombed, they still had a lot of positive things to say about it.

As to why it failed: it failed because the ratings were low and falling, and the show was very expensive to produce. Why were the ratings low? My feeling is that viewers expected to see some comedy (in a show about a comedy show) and the bits of the "show within a show" we were allowed to see weren't very good. The episode (I believe it was the second) in which Matt had to come up with a cold open at the last minute and he did a Gilbert & Sullivan parody is a good example. On the show, it was a huge success, but to viewers, it was stale and uninspired. In general, viewers got a sense that the show was a lot more impressed with itself than it deserved; as they realized this, more and more changed the channel.

[–] segsig 14 years ago

Total agreement about cost of production and audience expectations! I would just add to this that marketing was a huge part of the reason it failed. Promo monkeys highlighted the return of Perry to the nothing but crap network and showed the funniest bits. Audience expectations were for a comedy and it was never meant to be that. If CBS has won the bidding war it wouldn't have had that problem!

[–] Mlprez13 14 years ago

You mean that CBS wouldn't have had that problem because no CBS shows are funny? Talk about low brow. CBS is the WORST network, and it appeals to idiots who love laugh tracks and AWFUL shows.

As for the first comment- yes, the show was "smart" - all Sorkin shows are. I like him, and the west wing and sportsnight &etc &etc. I'm not a "stupid" tv viewer. This show started out as a quality show, and it got extremely *beep* as the season progressed. The critics agreed- check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip#Critical_and_public_reaction

Look- I get it, you like the show. But you shouldn't. Because it sucks.

[–] segsig 14 years ago

My point regarding CBS was that they wouldn't have been marketing the return of Perry to his comedy fans. Truthfully the show should have been on HBO, and fortunately Mr. Sorkin has changed his attitude towards that and is taking his next outing there.

[–] Mlprez13 14 years ago

BTW- @budikavlan - I agree with the second half of your post. This is a well conceived argument, and you're right. But lets face facts- the show just got bad. No one has answered the garbage storylines at the end of the season. They were ridiculous. They work in a series about the President of the United States- NOT in a series about a TV show. Do you think Lorne Michaels has ever ordered a PMC to save Horatio Sanz's brother? No. He hasn't.

[–] budikavlan 14 years ago

You'll have no argument from me about that. I was one of the people who sampled the show early on and tuned out after a few weeks. I have grown more and more sensitive over time to intellectual snobbery, and Studio 60 positively reeked of it.

The main point of my original response was that it's silly to claim the show was a complete critical disaster from the get-go, just because one wants to gloat over its ultimate fate.

[–] juviejay 13 years ago

Well, you can call me stupid, I guess, but I actually liked the kidnapping storyline. I don't know why you found it preposterous, or bad, or whatever you said, OP. The show seems to end on a high note, kind of like Sports Night did. You'd never guess these shows were being cancelled from the way they ended.

Anyway, Tom only considers hiring people to rescue his brother. In the end, the US military comes through and he doesn't have to. I liked that. Despite Sorkin's obvious left leanings, he clearly has great respect for our military. I found all the K&R episodes compelling, or riveting, or "good," as you might say had you enjoyed them.

She's not naked. She's holding a gun...strategically.

[–] corsi71inc 13 years ago

I have grown more and more sensitive over time to intellectual snobbery, and Studio 60 positively reeked of it.

I find that comment to be terribly amusing. To say it is on par with saying Monday Night Football or the World Series reeks of 'athletic snobbery'. Yes, the show was smart and enjoyed itself. How is that snobbish?
How many plots and sub-plots of the show dealt directly with the anti-intellectualism that has run rampant in this country for the past eleven years? Jack Rudolph bitching about how no one would want to watch Nations, a show about politics. This was Sorkin's response to everyone who thought that the West Wing would bomb, because it was too 'high brow'. The dumbing down of the US with reality television. Seek & Destroy and All You Need Is Love. The Bush administration sending Karl Rove to Hollywood to warn them not to say anything against 'the war'.

Well, thanks America, but I happen to LIKE a show that doesn't treat me like a moron. It is a sad indictment that too many folks out there would rather see exactly the kind of crap that these characters were fighting to keep off television. So Studio 60 gets cancelled, but Tim Allen gets a new show. Sad, sad, sad. If you think that is snobbish, then I can only assume you are against intelligent and mature programming. Oh, and by mature, I don't mean it has to show t!ts. Neither do I mean that every second of every show has to be deep. But there are more than enough fools on TV; there should be some space left for the rest of us, even though we are sadly in the minority.

As Issac Asimov put it, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Or, as Matt Albie said to Harriet, regarding the Culture Wars: "Your side thinks our side thinks you're stupid, and our side thinks you're stupid."

1. Being moody.
2. Being bad at maths.
3. Being sad.

[–] budikavlan 13 years ago

It's one thing for a show to be smart, but it's something else entirely for it to constantly pat itself on the back for being so smart. Studio 60 was a smart show, but not anywhere near as smart as it thought it was. It used literary and historical references to show off, not because they belonged. And while I hate antiintellectualism as much as the next guy, it's annoying when someone (or some TV show) think of themselves as a martyr to it.

Look at it this way: Studio 60 was the TV equivalent of that insufferable person you work with who claims to only watch PBS on TV, or brags about their own comments at their book club, or who can't meet a prominent person without fawning about how wonderful it is to have intelligent company for a change. Truly smart people are just smart--they don't have to wear a T-shirt proclaiming their smartness.

[–] corsi71inc 13 years ago

I agree with your premise, but I don't agree that Studio 60 was guilty of it. I thought, particularly in 2006, that it was a breath of fresh air on TV after so much bland fare. Particularly on network TV.
It is, after all, media. If it isn't on display, it isn't in existence. I think a 40-odd minute teleplay must walk a fine line between enjoying its wit and brandishing it. We just disagree on whether the show was able to stay on the right side of it. I think it did.

No harm, no foul.

1. Being moody.
2. Being bad at maths.
3. Being sad.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]