As noted in a previous post, I’m becoming less and less enamored of the show. But the complaints about the quality of the sketches within the show really seem pointless.
Regarding, for example, “Pimp My Trike”, we see all of 3 seconds of this sketch, and the point seems to be that it produced something of a laugh for the studio audience and the presumed TV audience (for me too, and you if you’d just admit you chucked briefly at the bit). Ultimately, including this sketch and the audience reaction merely laid the groundwork for believing the show-within-the-show was a hit. Claiming that the full sketch itself would naturally be lame because “you’d be hard up to come up with 90 seconds of humorous material” is like complaining that elephant eggs would be inedible if an elephant laid eggs (still, I bet they’d be funny…).
In short, we have no idea how the sketch would have gone (who knows, maybe after 20 seconds of lame trike jokes the faux host breaks down in an angst-filled moment of self loathing?), and debating the undisclosed content of such sketches in forming a criticism of the show is just lame speculation. There are plenty of reasons not to like the show; the heavy drama forced and shoehorned into the relatively trivial matter of late-night TV is #1 on my list, Sarah Paulson’s character–who might as well have “I’m a Christian” tattooed on her forehead–is another. But the presumed humor potential of “Pimp my Trike” just isn’t one of them.
None of these, it seems to me, would create the kind of philosophical, argumentative dialogue that drives the frenzied pace of the show. In fact, Sorkin has had to introduce elements completely extraneous to the production of the show–drug tests, a past DUI, religious matters–to gin up his patented style of dialogue.
There’s nothing wrong with that, but it does reveal the problems with setting his drama in a TV studio; it apparently in-and-of-itself offers few subjects for dramatic writing. If Sorkin can pull of a script where the big driving concern is, say, a union strike of the setbuilders/technical crew, or a true screen-time rivalry between two popular cast members, he’ll obviously prove me wrong (which is, I’m sure, #1 on his to-do list). I just wonder how many opportunities his setting can provide this; so far he hasn’t taken advantage, and I’m wondering if he can…
Matt was chattering away about focus groups and expositing on how different people can ask different questions be inserted and realized that Danny had asked for the patriotism question to be put in the last session. He ran up on Danny and knocked him down saying something like I’m younger and faster. Danny rolled on top of him saying something like I’m older and stronger. Danny copped to inserting the patriotism question and said it was because he was afraid that Matt would be “soft” on political humor after the last go-around and getting flak for supprting Mahr. After they made nice nice Matt said something like you better hit me soon because this is just too homoerotic for me. Har de har har.
Two other comments:
(1) I thought Harriet’s argument about the small town was quite reasonable. There’s a big difference between making fun of, say, the Kansas State Board of Education, and making fun of a tiny town out in the middle of nowhere. The Kansas State Board of Education deserves to be made fun of. In fact, I’d almost go so far as to say that socially conscious and relevant parodists SHOULD make fun of it (when it does stupid things, obviously). Some tiny little town? Not so much… Not that it’s automatically the case that tiny towns are immune to parody, but there’s a higher standard of ridiculousness they need to meet. And it’s also quite possible for the other people to disagree with her argument, and still not run the joke, just because they like and respect her. That’s not hypocritical, unless that person has a code of ethics which REQUIRES them to mock silliness wherever they find it.
(2) I agree that the idea that Jordan McDeere’s DUI was a story big enough for TV to cover is, at least potentially, a bit ridiculous… UNLESS she happens to be someone who is in the public spotlight for reasons we’re not aware of. She might be a minor celeb, perhaps because of the fact that she’s a young hot woman who happens to have climbed high fast in a somewhat visible profession, and then of course she was just linked to the meltdown, which was obviously news, etc. So I guess it’s reasonable that she’d be far more externally publically famous that whoever the real life person is at NBC who has the equivalent of her job…
Why do you guys think that Sorkin is trying to convey that the comedy bits on the show-within are funny? This is a drama series about Hollywood and Television. And SNL is not funny anymore, hasn’t been in many years. Matt and Danny might get 109 % and given NBS their best Friday night in 14 years. But that’s all relative. It doesn’t mean the show is a hit by any means. Fridays and Saturdays are tv wastelands (excet Friday this week when BSG returns). Whetever a network does, it’ll never get the ratings they have on a Tuesday or Wednesday. So they put on programming that is supposedly edgy, shows that will help build a profile and generate buzz. But ratings and revenue are not that important, as long as they don’t lose too much money. It’s the same with Letterman, Conan and Leno. High profile shows that very few people watch.
Matt and Danny aren’t stars. They left the show to make movies, but it didn’t work out great. They’re now back, trying to save what’s left. This is their last chance and it’s the network’s last chance to salvage a Friday night time slot. Even though it’s portrayed as a hit, even 200 % would be abyssmal comparing to what the same nework is getting on a week night. Some people will laugh at anythingg, that doesn’t mean this show is a hit.
I don’t agree with this. Matt just won a Writer’s Guild Award, and people were asking for both of their autographs outside of the wrap party. Couple that with Danny making his “I’m a recovering coke addict” statement at the press conference, and these guys are newsworthy. Not big stars, granted, but of a high profile. Even though Danny can’t get bonded, that doesn’t mean he can’t mdirect movies. There will always be someone out there willing to hire him for a job, with a creative method of financing, or even self-financing, a movie. And Wes said in episode #1 that they were pulling in 9 million viewers. Someone have a good idea of what kind of share that would be?
I seem to recall that each ratings point represented 950,000 viewers so 9 million viewers would be about a 9.5 rating (not sure about the share; I’m not in television). Presumably if this is the edgy hip show with a 18-34 demographic its ratings are troubled by the same things that plagued SNL’s ratings in early years (and possibly yet today), that ratings don’t measure dorms, fraternities, bars, etc. where people may be watching the show in great numbers but not be recorded.
I like the show, but there’s something missing. I can’t quite figure what it is.
I loved SportsNight. Loved, loved, loved West Wing. But, while I can’t find immediate faults with this show, it hasn’t hit me the way either of those did. I don’t know that it’s the subject matter. A weekly sports wrap up show is no more meaty than a comedy sketch show. I keep expecting that any second now I’ll be hit with the really good stuff–the great stuff that will make me swoon. And I’m still kind of waiting.
I like Matt and Danny. I even like Harriet (she seems like the sweet, nicey nice devout Christians I know who never do anything malicious but still come down on the side of “wrong” pretty often). I don’t like Jordan so much. I’m not sure if it’s her age or something else, but she doesn’t seem to have any authority or brilliance backing up her position. CJ had it. Dana had it. So I know Sorkin can write strong women. Jordan just doesn’t have it yet. It’s like Amanda Peet doesn’t have the spark needed for that kind of dialogue and timing.
I also have a problem with the names “Matt” and “Danny”:
it’s startlingly unimaginative to name Matthew Perry’s character “Matt,” isn’t it?
it’s just startling to have the actor who played the character named “Danny” on TWW getting into a shouting match with the actor who played the chacacter “Josh” on TWW but screaming “Danny” at him the whole argument.
Also wasn’t McDeere Tom Cruise’s name in THE FIRM?
That was a really good catch, thanks. I completely missed that until you mentioned it.
I’m still iffy on this show, although I loved Sorkin’s TWW episodes. I’m hoping the show is still working its way through some sort of opening episode jitters, but I’m afraid that Sorkin’s too close to the subject matter to step back and write good material rather than continuously striving to make points. Right now, it’s feeling too autobiographical and contrived to develop into something interesting. All of the characters that aren’t either representing Sorkin himself, or aligned with his viewpoint, seem mighty shallow at the moment. It remains to be seen if he can write an interesting and sympathetic oppositional character when he’s so closely tied to the subject at hand.
But, FWIW, I thought Paulson’s Holly Hunter impression was damn good, and I have no beef with Amanda Peet as Jamie Tarses, both of which seem to be common complaints.
I don’t know if this is a blessing or a curse, but I find tv solely for entertainment value with very little dipping below the frosting on top. I don’t dig in and look for the detail you all find. I just get in the car and go for a ride.
And so far I’ve enjoyed this show, no it isn’t the best on tv. With the 3 hour plan in effect, it’s not even on the schedule but with down time this evening and laundry keeping me up late (I hate leaving clothes in the dryer overnight) I sat down and watched it on NBC.com.
shrug I never got into the West Wing, my dad watched enough political tv shows to turn me off of anything political on tv, and I never got into SNL - mostly because it has sucked for most of my life, but Sorkin has created a drama around the production of a show and the lives of the people who are behind it. And these are stories that when I sit down to watch the show, I do become meshed in.
I think it’s interesting so many of you expect the show within the show to be funny. Personally, I’m indifferent to the show within the show when it comes right down to it. I was fine without seeing Crazy Christians, and the montage fulfilled my expectations of what the show is like. I think it might be done on purpose. If the skits were funny, we would be pissed they hadn’t shown more. Wouldn’t we? If the skits were hysterical we would want to see more of them and soon the show within the show would begin to overtake the show. So the solution is to temper it, keep it lukewarm and just push through it.
I quote this because I believe everyone should read this again, carefully, because it is absolutely correct.
I don’t mean to harp in this, but there is an annoying tendency in message-board criticism to demand such a high level of realism from a TV show–hyper-realism–that it conflicts with good storytelling techniques. I knew a fellow, for example, who criticized “WKRP in Cincinnati” because the DJ’s did not use headphones and the broadcast music was playing in the broadcast booth (real radio stations cut out speakers in the booth when a mic is live to avoid feedback). That, to me, was an utterly silly reason to criticize a TV show; it demands everything be 100% realistic to the point that it hampers storytelling.
I disagree. I don’t think most people are demanding absolute realism. What they ARE asking is that when the show insists over and over that Matt and Danny are geniuses, and that the show’s cast is so amazingly good, we need to see some evidence of that. Or failing that, please don’t show us that their show is in fact incredibly mediocre and then insist that they’re awesome geniuses. It would be better never to show it at all and let us imagine it’s funny rather than remove all doubt that it’s really not.
I think it would be even more interesting to show how hard people work to create a not-that-great show, and the toll it would take on a cast and crew to know that you get to suck every week on a public stage, and get ridiculed for it the rest of the week.
No. On preview, cmbalmer is right, but I’ll keep writing because I’m already here. Talking about how funny something is, showing people laughing uproariously at it, and then showing how it is really not very funny at all - that hampers storytelling.
Imagine that they spent the first half of the show talking about how extremely tall Mr. Tall was, and then they show people reacting to Mr. Tall as if he’s a circus freak, and then they pan over and show Mr. Tall and he’s the same height as D.L Hughley. Now as a viewer, I’m not thinking about whatever it was that Sorkin wanted me to think about Mr. Tall. I’m thinking, “Wait a minute, Mr. Tall… isn’t. Why is everyone acting like he is? Am I missing something? Or is this bullshit.”
It’s not a matter of nitpicking details. If you can’t get a really tall guy to play Mr. Tall, you don’t try to show Mr. Tall. You talk about Mr. Tall. Maybe you show reaction shots to Mr. Tall.
I think some people here were looking for a “making of”/“behind the scenes” documentary, that would lead up to the reveal of the finished product each week.
That would be a huge mistake. Aaron Sorkin is not a sketch writer – we’re better off if we see nothing, or very little, of the sketches. I think the worst part of this week’s show was “Science/Schmience” – it wasn’t the least bit funny (although I thought the Tom Cruise impression was pretty good), and we saw a lot of it.