# Studio 60 - 10/16 (The Long Lead Story) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 16, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697 "2006-10-16T23:05:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/61 "2006-10-18T17:10:02Z")
> **[The Onion | America's Finest News Source.](https://www.theonion.com/)** > > The Onion brings you all of the latest news, stories, photos, videos and more from America's finest news source. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/62 "2006-10-18T17:14:41Z")
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase] The real suits inside NBC must be having frantic meetings at this point. If two such heavily promoted, critically acclaimed shows can’t get good ratings on Monday night, then how could any replacement shows do better? [/QUOTE] Maybe they could go with that Search and Destroy idea? ---
**Author:** ![Rube\_E.Tewesday](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f0a364/32.png) [@Rube\_E.Tewesday](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rube_E.Tewesday)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/63 "2006-10-18T17:30:01Z")
[QUOTE=Ethilrist] Maybe they could go with that Search and Destroy idea? [/QUOTE] Yeah, cause I would totally watch that. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/64 "2006-10-18T17:30:46Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I think I’m done with this show. I gave it five episodes and last night’s was the worst one yet. The Nancy Grace sketch was interminable and unfunny and suffered by comparison to the Amy Pohler sketch. The stuff about a TV sketch show saving the world was unbelievably self-aggrandizing and pompous. The romance is tedious, unbelievable and pointless. The use of their relationship as a metaphor for the culture war is heavy-handed and obvious (and if you weren’t getting the metaphor, a character has now helpfully pointed it out to us. I guess that shows what Sorkin thinks of the intelligence of his audience). It also doesn’t really work because, so far, the show has not really given us any indication that Harriet actually represents any “red state” cultural values other than being a “Christian” (so are most blue staters, Sorkin). If they’re going to be a “metaphor” then let’s see some genuine philosphical tension. Let’s see Harriet express an authentic right wing opinion. Simply being a “Christian” means nothing. If she’s a conservative Christian, as the show implies (so far it’s identified her as a Southern Baptist and a creationist who feels comfortable on the 700 Club), then we need to see her ACT like one. That is, we need to see her act like one if Sorkin really wants ring any allegorical meaning from its defining relationship. I get the feeling the show is afraid to let Harriet say anything that makes her seem stupid or bigoted but in that case, why are we supposed to believe there would be any tension between her and Chandler. Is the tension ONLY supposed to derive from the fact that he’s an atheist and she’s a Christian? Well fine, that doesn’t actually represent the culture war (which is mostly being fought between two different factions of theists, not between theists and atheists) but let’s at least see some debate about THAT. Would Sorkin have the balls to let those characters have a full on EvC debate? Would the network ever have the sack to air one? The more the show pussyfoots around the real differences, the less important it seems for them to “overcome” them. Did Sorkin really need to add another “Mary Sue” to the show? Was Chandler not enough? I have to say, as bad as the reality show sounded, I still think it would get better ratings than the other show. A dramatic series about the United Nations? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. [/QUOTE] I had quite a lot to say, but DtC covered just about all of it. I will watch next week’s since it’s the after party, because I want to perhaps naively believe that 60 minutes of absolutely nothing might actually pay off next week. But I’m seriously doubtful (and next week will have to kick ass in a way this show hasn’t come close to doing yet). The backstory business wasn’t particularly revelatory and didn’t make Harriet an iota more believable, nor the romance more interesting. The Sorkin-lite/reality-crap opposition was equally transparent and merely a sop toward the patronizing “Audiences/Executives are stupid; I wish I ran TV” posturing. Sting’s inclusion was sheerly for ratings/padding/shilling his newest CD–and we couldn’t even listen to the song without it being another Dramatic Underscore that we’re constantly getting at the climax of each episode. The sketches might’ve been passable, but when there isn’t anything resembling Drama in the actualy show-show, who gives a crap? Ugh. I know I’ll watch next week’s, but with the expectation (not hope, just law-of-averages reasoning) that it’ll be the last nail in the coffin for this viewer. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/65 "2006-10-18T17:41:18Z")
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase] I don’t care about the issues or people either. I do care that he’s creating characters and situations that aren’t dramatically compelling to me because he’s getting juvenile revenge by making their triumphs too easy. [/QUOTE] Do you care why he’s creating characters and situations that aren’t compelling? It just seems in these threads that the viewers are bringing in a ton of baggage and then bitching about the baggage. It doesn’t really matter. I like the show, but probably won’t participate in any further threads on it since it’s not really that type of show for me. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/66 "2006-10-18T18:15:02Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] Do you care why he’s creating characters and situations that aren’t compelling? It just seems in these threads that the viewers are bringing in a ton of baggage and then bitching about the baggage. It doesn’t really matter. I like the show, but probably won’t participate in any further threads on it since it’s not really that type of show for me. [/QUOTE] I don’t have any baggage. I had no familiarity at all with Sorkin before this show. I’ve never seen _West Wing_ or _Sportsnight_ (well, I saw maybe half an episode of the latter). I’ve never seen that Michael Douglas-as-POTUS move. I knew less than nothing about Sorkin’s personal life. I barely knew anything other than his name so anything autoboigraphical in the show is lost on me, yet I still find most of the characters and storylines uncompelling, self-important and unrealistic. ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_Factotum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sean\_Factotum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sean_Factotum)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/67 "2006-10-18T18:18:05Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I don’t have any baggage. I had no familiarity at all with Sorkin before this show. I’ve never seen _West Wing_ or _Sportsnight_ (well, I saw maybe half an episode of the latter). I’ve never seen that Michael Douglas-as-POTUS move. I knew less than nothing about Sorkin’s personal life. I barely knew anything other than his name so anything autoboigraphical in the show is lost on me, yet I still find most of the characters and storylines uncompelling, self-important and unrealistic. [/QUOTE] And yet you’re still watching the show, week after week. There’s got to be something that keeps you tuning in. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/68 "2006-10-18T18:18:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t care about any of these issues because I wouldn’t know about any of these issues except for people complaining about them. Yes, but it’s like going on a date with somebody who’s obsessed with their ex. You never met the ex and you don’t care about the ex, but you’re still going to be stuck listening to stories about the ex and the obsession will ruin your date. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/69 "2006-10-18T18:35:08Z")
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum] And yet you’re still watching the show, week after week. There’s got to be something that keeps you tuning in. [/QUOTE] Not anymore if you read my earlier post. I gave it a chance because it was so highly touted and because I was intrigued by the subject matter. I gave it five episodes and just didn’t get into it. I’m done with it now. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/70 "2006-10-18T18:40:50Z")
This has to be the most overanalyzed show in television history. It is not a comedy show, it is a show about a comedy show. The show-within-a-show criticism just doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe the complainers can spend the time in between show analysing Sportsnight episodes. “Did you see that! They said the Yankees were playing at home but they were wearing their road uniforms!!! Can you even believe that! Oh My God!” ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/71 "2006-10-18T19:03:22Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Yes, but it’s like going on a date with somebody who’s obsessed with their ex. You never met the ex and you don’t care about the ex, but you’re still going to be stuck listening to stories about the ex and the obsession will ruin your date. [/QUOTE] I don’t know whether you mean the show/writers or the viewers are the ones talking about the ex. From my perspective, the viewers who keep bringing this stuff about personal lives and past shows are the ones obsessing about the ex, “ruining” my date. You aren’t really ruining anything, of course, since it’s not that big a deal. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/72 "2006-10-18T19:34:03Z")
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane] This has to be the most overanalyzed show in television history. [/QUOTE] Not reading the _Lost_ threads, huh. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/73 "2006-10-18T20:01:37Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t know whether you mean the show/writers or the viewers are the ones talking about the ex. > > From my perspective, the viewers who keep bringing this stuff about personal lives and past shows are the ones obsessing about the ex, “ruining” my date. You aren’t really ruining anything, of course, since it’s not that big a deal. Metaphor difficulties, huh? Okay, here’s the problem in clear. In real life, Aaron Sorkin had a relationship with Kristin Chenoweth. This relationship ended. Aaron Sorkin is writing a television series. He created characters on this series, Matt and Harriet, that are clearly based on himself and Chenoworth. Many viewers have complained that the series is giving too much attention to the relationship between Matt and Harriet and that it is throwing off the balance of the show. The experience that viewers have is that a television series has weaker scripts. But the cause for those weaker scripts is Sorkin’s personal life. So Sorkin’s personal life is affected viewers even if they are unaware of who he used to date. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/74 "2006-10-18T20:32:46Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Metaphor difficulties, huh? Okay, here’s the problem in clear. In real life, Aaron Sorkin had a relationship with Kristin Chenoweth. This relationship ended. [/QUOTE] Like I said, from _my_ perspective, you’re the one harping on and on about the “ex.” It made your metaphor funny since _from my perspective_ it applies to you more than it applies to the show. I like the show and hope it survives. I think it’s got a good shot. That’s pretty much the extent of my commentary, so I’ll be leaving now. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/75 "2006-10-18T21:48:40Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Yes, but it’s like going on a date with somebody who’s obsessed with their ex. You never met the ex and you don’t care about the ex, but you’re still going to be stuck listening to stories about the ex and the obsession will ruin your date. [/QUOTE] Yes. Or to confirm my position in the category of people that are annoying **jsgoddess** , it feels a real life version of the “This one’s for you, Felicia” episode of SportsNight. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/76 "2006-10-19T02:34:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Like I said, from my perspective, you’re the one harping on and on about the “ex.” It made your metaphor funny since from my perspective it applies to you more than it applies to the show. J, you do understand the difference between me and Aaron Sorkin in terms of our impact on the content of _Studio 60_? That difference being that nothing I say, do, or think has any effect on the show. So my indifference or obsession about Sorkin’s life is immaterial to this discussion (in point of fact, I was unaware until I read it here three weeks ago that Sorkin had a past relationship with Chenoworth). Sorkin, on the other hand, is the primary influence on the content of the show. So in a discussion of the content of the show, mention of him is unavoidable. And being as he chose to base the show on his personal life, it inevitably follows that any discussion of the show will also be a discussion of Sorkin’s personal life. [Metaphor alert]Trying to discuss _Studio 60_ without discussing Sorkin’s personal life would be like trying to discuss _CSI_ without discussing forensics.[Actually that was more of a simile] ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/77 "2006-10-19T03:59:16Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] [Metaphor alert]Trying to discuss _Studio 60_ without discussing Sorkin’s personal life would be like trying to discuss _CSI_ without discussing forensics.[Actually that was more of a simile] [/QUOTE] A simile is a metaphor (but not all metaphors are similes). ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697/78 "2006-10-22T17:04:32Z")
I liked how Tom was watching old movies, trying to get the voice and the accent down of the actor. I loved the Nancy Grace spoof…that was excellent. I really think O’Dell is going to do a good job on the article for the show, and not some sort of muckraking expose. Of course, it helps to get the backstory so she can better understand the dynamics, but I’ll be surprised if the whole _Star Spangled Banner_-stiletto boot thing gets in her article. And for a successful Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist to get all gooey over Sting was very sweet. Who wouldn’t, especially when the man is playing a lute? Was _West Wing_ originally pitched to HBO? I would have paid money for that! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-10-16-the-long-lead-story/376697.md?page=3)