I really enjoyed this episode, and I’m enjoying the series. I’m not sure why all the people who think it’s so “awful, awful, awful” are still watching (yes, yes, I know, be careful of what you wish for – I don’t expect the show to last much longer anyway). I mean, I tuned in for the pilot of Heroes, found it boring and not to my tastes, and tuned out. I stopped watching Lost when I realized that the characters were determinedly incurious, that the pace was deadly, that the dialogue was vanilla, and that the flashbacks were meaningless filler. But S60 – and this is true on the Television Without Pity board as well – seems to have an uncommon number of viewers who watch every week just to find anew all the things they hate, so they can immediately post all about them. If it’s not your thing, then why in the world…?
sigh
There are so few shows I like on television; it just makes me sad that there’s such a negative response to this one.
Sorkin is always rife with cliches so complaining about him using them is pretty old hat at this point.
I liked this episode because- Hey guess what! We didn’t have to see shitty ass sketch comedy bits presented as comedy fucking gold.
Oh and the asian woman cast member returned for a line. Is this the first time we’ve seen her since the second episode?
The mid-west parents being so dense could have worked if it had been played as cmedy but since it was played pretty serious it just seemed meanspirited.
Because of Sorkin’s reputation and because of all the stars. But he’s phoning it in, and has a bad connection, and all the stars in the world can’t help that.
In a month, I’ve gone from taping it on its own disk, to taping it on whatever disk is handy, to deliberately not taping it at all. Am I “still watching”? Technically, yes. Last night I watched it, switched on and off to the football game, and made a phone call in the last few minutes of the show. But I no longer hope.
I’m not gonna watch it again, if that’s any comfort to you.
Don’t read the TWoP boards (I’ve tried to register but the admins or whoever never confirm my registration, so fuck 'em) but at least here it seems like people make an effort to offer a balanced critique, rather than just slamming.
That’s fair, Otto. It’s just…y’know, statements like this from Sam:
In my opinion, Sorkin’s writing is better, tighter, and more interesting than 95 percent of what you find on network dramas and sitcoms. Which is not to say that it can’t still be “so over the top and cliched it’s pathetic,” but it just seems like, for whatever reason, people are holding this show to a waaaay higher standard than almost anything else out there, and then slinging invective when it doesn’t measure up.
Or not. I don’t mean to impugn (or single out) Sam…the show’s certainly not perfect, and I have no doubt that it’s legitimately not to his taste; I don’t think he has any particular axe to grind. But statements like his cloak themselves in the objective, and I take a bit of issue with that.
Hey, congrats. I thought it sucked very hard, half-watched last week’s show, and didn’t watch last night. I see from the poor folks who did watch it that I didn’t miss anything.
And I considered myself a big fan of Sorkin’s and of the concept behind the show.
I’ve more or less liked all the episodes so far, except for this one. Jack and Jordan’s scenes were the only ones that didn’t seem completely contrived. Everything was freaking exposition. Cal gave me several history lessons. Simon gave me a lecture about giving back, or something.
The dialogue was extremely stilted and unrealistic. Tom’s tour of the studio was note perfect, as if he had actually been working as a tour guide for several years. Come on, who talks to his parents like that?
Look, I’m from Ohio, and I’m closer to Tom’s age than to his parents’ age and I’ve heard of Abbott and Costello and Bob and Ray and Sid Caesar and … come on, these are people from their generation (well, maybe slightly before).
What kind of a stereotyped middle American has been completely isolated from television and pop culture since the 1930s? Were they supposed to be Amish? In that case, why were they driving a (circa 1990) Plymouth Voyager?
And Mr. Tom was grouchy about every damn thing just because Tom’s brother is in Afghanistan? That’s what makes Tom worthless?
What kind of weird-ass characters are these? They’re not even consistent as stereotypes.
Nor did I believe or intend it would. You seem particularly upset that people are saying mean things about the show and should just stop watching. Yet even you realize that this would mean the end of the show. I was just reinforcing that you’ll probably get your way.
I’m just not sure that whining about how people shouldn’t be mean about the show is the best way to go about things. Perhaps if Sorkin gets enough honest feedback, he’ll be able to change it from the piece of shit it currently seems to be to something worth watching.
You could start a thread entitled “Say Only Nice Things About Studio 60 Here.” After all, just like Otto and Sorkin, nobody is “holding a nail gun to your crotch” to make you read these mean things.
I don’t think they should stop watching. I just wonder why this show, seemingly more than most shows, should have a number of viewers who watch it despite not liking it at all.
Yes, because “so over the top and cliched it’s pathetic” is the very essence of constructive criticism.
I think it would have been more original, and funnier, if Tom’s parents were comedy snobs. That way Sorkin could still show everybody how clever he is without being so condescending to the audience. (“That last skit was amusing, dear, but wasn’t it just copying Aristophanes’ ‘The Frogs?’”)
And, incidentally, Aristophanes outdoes modern sketch comedy by a country mile when it comes to the sheer density of fart jokes and comical genitalia. It’s really rather amazing.
No, no, no, I was trying to express YOUR opinion there. Why wasn’t that clear to you? I thought I’d written explicitly in my post that these judgments are factual in nature and are, besides, so blindingly obvious that all must bow to their wisdom and parrot them like so many mindless zombies, of whom you are clearly one.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned (at least I didn’t notice) that the old man was Eli Wallach. I know in the OP it says that but Eli Wallach is one of those names most people recognize but couldn’t pick him out of a line up. It was halfway through the episode when it clicked- “It’s Bucho!” Then I would just add “Blondie!” to the end of all of his lines.
I liked Perry’s reaction shots to the bimbos, but the bit was pretty silly. They want to be actresses, but they have no idea what a writer does? I can see them sneering at mere writers, but not to understand the concept of a script? Plus, Matt’s an executive producer. Surely if chicks like that know one thing, it’s to always blow anyone called a producer.
Well, given that the context there was, “Maybe Sorkin will hear the honest feedback and change the show into something worth watching,” I’m sorry for assuming that the “constructive” was implied.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m sure there are many shows on which you and I wholeheartedly agree, and many on which we don’t. And yeah, more often than not my tastes don’t mirror those of most other people. Such is life.
