The show was terrible. The pilot was great, but the rest of the series was crap. Even Sorkin said it had flaws.
Those of you who blame the lack of advertising are wrong. The show was the flagship show of NBC's 2006-07 lineup. It was the highlight of its upfront showcase. It was advertised non-stop.
Critics loved THE PILOT. They hated the rest. It was named one of the biggest busts of the season, with it being called "less than huge" after all the hype (again, there was hype, which means it was advertised).
You keep blaming Americans, but it wasn't us: blame Sorkin for making a bad show. A bad EXPENSIVE show during a time when NBC was (and still is) in the toilet. So why would NBC keep funding a show the vast majority of people don't like - not because it's bad, but because it's pretentious with horrible storylines - when it's already financially dying? NBC banked HEAVY on Studio 60. They even gave it a full season order after its initial 13 episodes did crappy! So also don't say NBC wasn't committed. They did all they could.
Everything points to the fact that the show was just bad. Bad storylines/writing (Tom's bro in Iraq, the terrible sketches on the show), miscast actors (Harriet was awful, yet we're supposed to believe she's a hilarious comedic actress), bad chemistry (Matt and Harriet) and a general lack of understanding of what actually goes on behind the scenes of a late-night sketch show (one man writing an entire show?!). Now people have a lot of explanations for these things ("in the world of Studio 60, Matt's sketches are funny and Harriet is viewed as amazing" etc. etc.). When you need explanations like that, that should make you realize the show sucked.
But yeah...keep blaming the dumb Americans. There are plenty of people in other countries that thought Studio 60 was a steaming pile as well.
reply
share