As Gadarene posted, that sketch was on the board foloowing the first commercial break. The “cold open” is how the show starts, the “opening sketch” follows the first commerical break (presumably after the introduction of the host and the host’s monologue).
The show is on live in L.A. at 8:30 local time; 11:30 p.m. on the east coast (Matt comments when the countdown clock is around 30 minutes that it’s "8:00 at night, it’s 102 degrees . . . ").
I’m liking the show a lot so far, but I’ve liked pretty much everything Sorkin has written, so I’m obviously biased. He does tend to get (overly) serious sometimes, and the focus will be on relationships as much (or more) than it’s on issues, but the dialogue is always great, and the time he invests in character development really makes you know and empathize with them.
That occurred to me after I posted, though it seems unnecessarily complicated, especially since Studio 60 is essentially live musical theatre, which is far more identified with New York than L.A. Then again, further research shows the short-lived sketch comedy show Fridays was, in fact, based in L.A. I guess Studio 60 is set in an alternate universe where Fridays was a good idea.
As a fan of past Aaron Sorkin shows, I want this show to be great. But it ain’t there yet. As with last week, I’d rate this episode “acceptable” over all - I didn’t feel I had wasted an hour watching it but I had expected and hoped for better.
Still too much autobiography - especially as it’s revisionist autobiography. Sorkin needs to realize we’re never going to be as fascinating with his life as he is.
Not that I’m an actor but I did a few productions in College theatre and praying before a show was the norm. It didn’t matter what faith anyone was, sometimes we’d each take turns saying something short, other times we’d pray silently but still say amen together and sometimes we’d take turns saying a prayer - depending on how much time we had. I understood that it was a theatre tradition, then again maybe an actual Doper Actor will come along and tell me otherwise.
I would like to see the occasional “soup to nuts” treatment of the development of a sketch, culminating in the actual sketch. Otherwise, it’s like that BTVS ep. where everybody but Xander talks about the horrific adventure they just had–but we never get to see it. Over and over again.*
This ep. almost qualified, but a musical production number is different from a sketch. Sketches, not musical bits, are the meat of SNL.
*Actually, “The Zeppo” was one of my favorite episodes from that show; I just don’t like seeing that device overused.
Hail Cthulhu, great Cthulhu, dread elder one! We embrace your imminent destruction of this world and pray that you wait until this production ends, if it please thee!
Yeah, my turn never seemed to come around for the ol’ Prayer Circle!
So far I’m digging the show. Sorkin’s stuff has always worked with me so this is right up my alley. So far my problems are with the casting, primarily the Harriet character. Something about her really grates on my nerves. Not sure if it’s the actress or just transfered malice based on her bible-thumping characterization, either way I’m not digging it.
I also found the group prayer thing to be pandering. I was buying into the whole bucking the religious right plotline, I’m not sure what that whole group prayer gimmick adds to the premise. What? They are all devout Christians which makes the Crazy Christians sketch ironic? Pretty thin. Had they just had Harriet praying as she’s apparently wont to do, fine, but every primary character…I’m not buying it.
In almost every improv group I’ve been in–and there’ve been several–there was a secular sort of “moment of silence” in a circle, a kind of focus and relaxation exercise. Its obvious roots are in the pre-show prayer, though.
I’m enjoying the show a lot, but there are certainly a lot of potential traps and pitfalls lurking:
The religion angle. Obviously, the show is attempting to take a stand against the religious right and its chilling effect on TV. But then they have to have a main character who is religious, so they can take shots at the religious right and then duck behind the character for cover by showing her as sympathetic. But that’s exactly the kind of cop-out nod to the religious right that the show within a show is fighting against. So that seems hypocritical to me.
Second, I have a fear that they’re going to try to ‘balance’ religion by showing Matt as a religious bigot who broke up with his girlfriend because he thinks all reliious people are KKK members, and the nutjob fundies being bigots on the other side, and Harriet the Christian in the middle as the voice of reason. So far so good, except that it’s possible that the ‘balance’ we’ll see is the kind of ‘realistic portrayal of religion’ you get from a secular Hollywood Liberal - which means every one of the characters could wind up being an annoying stereotype.
The show-within-a-show. The comment above about it getting annoying watching a show about a show we never see is dead on. If we’re spending large chunks of the plot on the creative process and production challenges, we’d better get to see the final product at least occasionally, or it will get annoying. And here’s the problem - it has to be funny. The premise is that these two guys came back to the show because they are God’s gift to comedy. For that to work, we’d better see some actual flashes of comedic brilliance on the show-within-a-show. We have to wish that we could actually watch that show before we start really caring about the people who make it. Now, there’s some hope here - D.L Hughley and Nate Corddry are funny guys. Perhaps they’ll get someone like Rob Corddry to actually write some of the comedy stuff. But if they flub the comedy, the show won’t be believable. And if they solve the problem by never showing the comedy, it will suck.
They mentioned that it was 8:30pm when commenting about the audience waiting in line. It’s shown live on the east coast and tape delayed on the west. The studio audience could go home and see it again if they wish to.
Diogenes, we get it. You don’t like the show.
That said, I’ve heard funnier G&S parodies. G&S is funnier G&S parody. And I still can’t stand Amanda Peet. But I like Matt & Danny, and I like their interaction with the cast & the cast with each other. It was a fun hour.
I thought the clear implication was that they took turns saying something before each show. Presumably Harriet, being Christian, says something Christian. And presumably the rest of the them, being nice people who like and respect her, are fine with it. When it’s the other people’s turns, I assume they say “let’s go out there and work together and do a great show woo-hoo!” or whatever.
I find that 100% believable. Plenty of atheists are willing to hold hands and stay silent when someone is saying grace.
I’d suggest being a little patient with the romantic storylines. They’re bound to be a drag for a while since we don’t yet know – or care about – the characters. Of course, for just that reason it probably would have been better if they’d held off on any of that stuff for a while, as they did on West Wing.
Oh, and regarding the G&S parody: don’t you guys think you’re setting your standards a bit high? Imagine you tune in to Saturday Night Live next weekend (maybe your remote is broken, I don’t know). Then, in the opening skit, you have something as funny as a crack about their producer doing blow and a professional choir elaborating on varieties of reach-arounds. You’d be flippin’ shocked. It’s not quite as funny for us because we have a good idea about what’s coming, but imagine seeing it, out of the blue, on SNL – you wouldn’t be impressed?
We’re talking about a population that believes that the word “MacBeth” carries a dire curse, and must never ever be spoken outside of dialogue from a play. James Randi they ain’t.
And my experience matches with Krokodil. Most of them are secularized, but a “power circle” is a big thing in the theater. I assume that when it’s DL’s turn, he’ll turn the Jesus down.
Good so far, but not great. I don’t need to see the sketches, as long as the backstage stuff is interesting. Not funny, interesting. It’s a show about comedians. It need not be brilliant comedy in and of itself. I do agree that Harriet’s faith seems rather crammed in there.
Put me in the crowd saying “Meh,” but keep reminding myself that it is only the 2d ep. I’m not saying it is bad, but as a big fan of WW, my hopes were pretty high.
I agree with the question whether a show about a comedy show will address issues that I care about as much as WW. I mean, would I have cared as much about WW if the show were just a soap opera set in a different industry?
And the Harriet character - “I have license to be unreasonable because I get paid big bucks to have an overactive imagination!” I see the prima donna element causing me to dislike the evangelical portion. (And I thought the “breaking the bottle” scene terribly unrealistic and contrived.)
I agree with those who feel it would have been better to not show the entire musical number. As was suggested in a previous thread, doing so allowed folks to focus on the merits of the skit itself, instead of the show itself. I think it would have been more satisfactory to have it as a background to one of those scenes where they track back and forth to other characters’ reactions. Maybe only focusing on a line here or there from the skit itself. But I’m not making Sorkin bucks to make this kinda decision.
Do you guys view the 2 main characters - Josh and Chandler (sorry, I don’t recall their current characters’ names) as significantly different from their immediate past roles? I don’t. I am unfamiliar with Josh in anything but WW. And Chandler impresses me as the Kevin Costner type of actor, who plays every role as a version of himself.
I’ll keep watching - at least for a while. But my socks haven’t been knocked off yet.
