Studio 60 - 9/25

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I was with you up to this point. I saw it as a respect thing. Everyone gets a chance to lead the pre-show circle (“Who’s turn is it?”) Last night it just happened to be Harriet’s turn.

And I like her character. She’s not a cliche or caricature, has real flaws (jealousy and anger)(great flame-spray of Matt in the writer’s room by the way) and is, to me, a genuinely likeable character.

So I must be watching a different show than a lot of the folks who are panning or “meh”-ing this. Because I thought that the G&S number was fantastic.

42

Yes, this episode was definitely weaker than the pilot. What a surprise. Pilots are developed over months or years, rewritten time and time again, tweaked to within an inch of their lives, and designed to have the maximum wattage to blow everybody away.

Then you have a week to write the second episode.

And the comments about why this episode was weak are strange. This was not supposed to be an average episode of a show that’s been on for 20 years. The show just went through a front page, conservative boycott, 24-hour-cable-sensation crisis. An ordinary sketch comedy piece would be ridiculous in context. The script went out of its way to show why that would be a bad choice. They deliberately did an opening that was not the norm, not playing to expectations about the show.

That does not mean that we won’t see any sketch comedy over the entire season. I’m as positive that we will as I’m positive that we’ll never see Crazy Christians. (And never see Bush bashing like what SNL does.) Entertainment Weekly reported that Sorkin hired Mark McKinney of Kids in the Hall to be an adviser on comedy sketches; I don’t think he has to have the actors write the scenes for him, although they may help improvise.

Think of this show as part two of the opening episode. The series doesn’t really begin until next week. That’s the episode that will have to exemplify what the rest of the season will be like. It has to be about turning out sketches, backstage relationships, and setting up conflicts for the future. And I would be surprised if the pointed satire of the television business didn’t show up again. That’s the button Sorkin has to keep pushing.

But compare the writing in Studio 60 with the writing in Heroes. The Heroes pilot was a hammer pounding Crisis, Shock, Horror, Girl’s Bathroom at you for an hour and it still couldn’t remotely compete in writing with a barely adequate Sorkin episode. Heroes could turn out to be fun or it could stink up the screen: too early to tell. Studio 60 already has levels to it that Heroes will likely never approximate.

The early years of the West Wing made watching all other television disappointing by comparison. Studio 60 has that potential as well. It may not live up to it, but taking our culture on with full-balls-out satire could lead to issues and involvement rivaling anything in WW. Could. It’s only been two episodes. Anybody here besides me remember how bad the first two episodes of SNL were?

Some shows are unwatchable from the first minute. Some, like fine wines, need time to breath. Give Studio 60 time. If it’s sour later, you can send it back and give the sommelier a piece of your mind.

43

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Fridays was, in fact, based in L.A. I guess Studio 60 is set in an alternate universe where Fridays was a good idea. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

These EXACT same words came out of my mouth this morning.
I was also disappointed in this episode. Nothing interesting really happened.

The song was incredibly lame. I thought when they started riffing on doing a muiscal opener we’d see something interesting maybe even rival the “Not gonna phone it in tonight” Steven Martin SNL number…but nope… tired Gilbert and Sullivan parody- didn’t SNL actually have the broadway cast of Pirates perform that song on the show in the 80s?
The only thing that was impressive was that I think that may be the first time I hve heard “reacharound” on network tv.

My biggest problem with the “Crazy Christians” sketch was not that we didn’t get to see it or any part of it- My problem was that we are supposed to accept that Matt is a great comedy writer when he titles a sketch the most on the nose and uninteresting title imaginable. Atleast give it a title that might be a little offensive or eyebrow raising. Apparently Sorkin thought “Crazy Christians” was enough to cause a controversy. No balls to call it “Monster Christ” or “Gay Jesus” something that might actually cause a stir.
And honestly it was really chickenshit not to make it Muslims.

I like the actress that plays Harriet…but my god she is miscast on this show. They have to tell you over and over again how talented and funny she is because NONE of that comes across in how she plays it.

I’m going on vacation for two weeks and really only have the ability to tape six shows while I’m gone. Studio 60 isn’t making it onto the tape. I’ll catch up with it when I get back.

44

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Is everyone in theater a religious nut? Aren’t any of them atheists? Does no one ever decline to participate in such things?
[/QUOTE]

Did Christians back over your puppy or something? Unclench.

Otto, thanks for the McGuffin link. If you didn’t I would have.

I was a fan of Sports Night, but never got into the West Wing. I’m enjoying this series so far.

45

I just assumed that Crazy Christians was just the run title of the sketch – that when it was actually aired, it wouldn’t have a name. No different than the Kids in the Hall having something they call the Gay Vampire sketch that’s about a gay vampire, even though there aren’t any placards or anything during the sketch with the words Gay Vampire on them, and even though the phrase “gay vampire” is never spoken.

46

[QUOTE=Push You Down]
My biggest problem with the “Crazy Christians” sketch was not that we didn’t get to see it or any part of it- My problem was that we are supposed to accept that Matt is a great comedy writer when he titles a sketch the most on the nose and uninteresting title imaginable.
[/quote]

As I noted in last week’s thread, sketch titles like “Church Chat” or “Coneheads” aren’t particularly captivating. The SNL sketch from the first five years that caused the greatest network panic was called “Nerds Christmas.” The title means nothing.

It would have made no sense for a bedwetting liberal like Matt, in 2002, to write a sketch about Muslims. In 2002 he would’ve been opposing the upcoming Iraq invasion and not fanning the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment.

47

I liked it pretty well. Matt’s agonizing over the deadline-displaying electronic clock in his office (reset at the beginning of the Friday opening of the show, to his horror) was great. The Steven Weber oily network suit quoting the Mary Tyler Moore Show’s “I hate spunky” line to Amanda Peet (who’s growing on me) was funny. And who said it in the original? Ed Asner… featured in S4’s premiere episode last week as the owner of the network. And another “Could you be any more…” Chandler Bing in-joke by the Bradley Whitford character. Nice.

I like G&S, but I thought the musical number was underwhelming. And at the risk of TMI, what’s a “reacharound,” anyway?

48

I thought about Fridays too, but Studio 60 is supposed to be a show that:

A. has survived for a long time

B. is apparently not good enough to trounce SNL or raise its bar, since when they invoke Lorne Michaels’ name we can be secure in the knowledge that fully 80% of their universe’s SNL sucks too

C. is just good enough and/or drawing enough ratings/sponsorship that NBS still pays to keep it on the air

Studio 60’s real life analogue is actually Mad TV! :eek:

David Hyde Pierce did a G&S number on SNL several years ago when he hosted.

49

OK, I have never seen the TWW, more for a lack of trying as opposed to anything else. I liked Sport Night, but this show last night just bored me to tears. I’m glad some folks liked it, but not me.

50

[QUOTE=Push You Down]
I like the actress that plays Harriet…but my god she is miscast on this show. They have to tell you over and over again how talented and funny she is because NONE of that comes across in how she plays it.
[/QUOTE]

That, and the audience’s standing ovation for the G&S song, make me uneasy for this show’s future. It’s might end up not being required that the show-within-a-show is actually funny or groundbreaking or edgy, but Sorkin is going to have his characters constantly say it’s funny and groundbreaking and edgy. He can casually describe mass protests to the “Crazy Christian” sketch when a real-world equivalent might get a brief mention on Entertainment Tonight along with video footage of a few dozen nutcase fundamentalist demonstrators, the report implying a derisive sneer and then quickly forgotten. To be even a semi-realistic interpretation of SNL, there are going to have to be moments when the guys at Studio 60 think they’ve done something cutting edge and extreme but the reaction from the audience is neither adulation nor outrage, but indifference. That’s the risk Lorne Michaels has had to learn to deal with, so let Matt’n’Josh do the same.

51

Mass protests? But there weren’t mass protests. A few affiliates decided not to air the show, a handful of sponsors pulled their spots, and there were some picketers outside. I felt like the level of coverage was appropriate – sort of a cross between last week’s coverage of the SNL cast upheaval, on the one hand, and the boycott of Ellen on the other. Not to mention the continuing media buzz that would follow Wes’s live meltdown…so throw in a dash of the Ashlee Simpson lip-synching thing, which people were talking about for at least a week.

52

[QUOTE=Otto]
As I noted in last week’s thread, sketch titles like “Church Chat” or “Coneheads” aren’t particularly captivating. The SNL sketch from the first five years that caused the greatest network panic was called “Nerds Christmas.” The title means nothing.
[/QUOTE]

Church Chat was the name of the segment. Coneheads is an actual title for a bit.
I don’t know any sketch writer that doesn’t come up with actual titles for the sketches. AND since we were expected to understand that there would be an uproar based on this sketch, giving it an uninteresting title did a disservice to the story of the episode. Make your tv audience atleast say “I can see how someone might have a problem with that.”

[QUOTE=Otto]

It would have made no sense for a bedwetting liberal like Matt, in 2002, to write a sketch about Muslims. In 2002 he would’ve been opposing the upcoming Iraq invasion and not fanning the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment.
[/QUOTE]

I never said you could swap out one and put in the other. Dealing with Christian fundies is just trite. Even in 2002 it was trite. You can brush that shit to the side. A far more interesting premise is a sketch dealing with the apparent lack of a sense of humor the world Muslim’s community has.

53

I’m assuming that you overlooked my post.

54

…Which is to say, title != title card.

55

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Is everyone in theater a religious nut? Aren’t any of them atheists? Does no one ever decline to participate in such things?
[/QUOTE]

I am definitely not a religious nut and I haven’t seen many/any of those in theatre Perhaps my bad grammar in this sentence;

made it difficult for you to understand. Others have explained but I’ll do it again.

It was more of a non-secular “prayer” circle. Most of the time the sentiments were “don’t let us screw up”, not directed at any particular diety. But if we did take turns and someone wanted to thank Jesus, God, Shiva, Dionysis or their grandma, everyone was respectful and kept their opinions to themselves.
As has been mentioned theatre people are a superstitious bunch, I’m sure that the prayer thing goes along with that. Also, I never heard anyone (and we had some wise asses in our group) invoke Chthulu or Satan - I think that would go along with the superstitious thing, don’t invoke him because he might actually show up and mention the Scottish play and doom us all.

56

[QUOTE=Push You Down]
Church Chat was the name of the segment. Coneheads is an actual title for a bit.
[/quote]

Whatever. My point still stands.

I think you’re missing the point. The only reason the sketch is important is as a plot point. It makes no difference what the script says or what the title is or anything else about the sketch, other than it exists, it has the potential to piss people off and it didn’t initially pass Standards and Practices. That’s it. They could have called it “Sketch 1324B” or “Billy and Steve Wear Pants” and as long as it’s understood that the sketch exists and is the focus of controversy then the sketch has served its storytelling purpose. Griping because the sketch name is unimaginative is pointless.

But that’s not the story Sorkin is trying to tell. Sorkin is contrasting the wacky fundies outside the show with the non-wacky (so far) devout Christian within the show. Sure he could’ve made it about a non-wacky Muslim inside the show but then he couldn’t really have based the character on Kristen Chenoweth, which was his intention.

57

The prayer was hysterical – really, go back and pay attention to it – my goodness that was funny.

I laughed at the G&S number though it wasn’t all that.

and, this is the first episode I’ve seen of this particular show, but it won’t be the last.

I do hate Peet, but everyone else has been great and the dialogue was really well done.

I think they’re drawing the outlines right now – can’t wait for them to fill them in.

And this is the first Sorkin show I’ve seen. I’ll have to look up the others.

58

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I pretty much agree with everything her. What annoys me about the Christian character is not that she’s a Christian but that she’s a “Christian.” It seems contrived. It’s like she’s only there so the show can’t be accused of being anti-Christian if it ever takes shots at the religious right (or if they ever show “Crazy Christians” which it looks like they won’t). I think it could be interesting to show some conflict between a cynical atheist (Matt) and a thoughtful, non-crazy Christian (Harry) but she’s going to actually have to show some philosophical depth and let us know why she’s a Christian (IOW, let her defend herself theologically once in a while) instead of just being a “Christian” in quotation marks whose religion is characterized by nothing more than a bland, theologically generic (and “tolerant”) prayer every episode. She doesn’t have to be a right-winger or a fundie but she DID go on the 700 Club and she must have known what she was endorsing by doing that. I don’t like the way the show is setting her up to be above criticism by avoiding letting her ever express a genuinely controversial view. If they want her to be a liberal Christian then why did she go on the 700 Club? She could actually do some good for liberal Christians if she were ever shown condemning the Pat Robertsons of the world and disavowing herself of them. I fear that any phiolsophical conflict between Matt and Harry will consist of shallow contempt by the atheist (where he just doesn’t like Christians but doesn’t show any real knowledge of the subject or depth of thought on skepticism) and subtly sanctimonious “tolerance” by Harriet. They really should make her be wrong sometimes – not all the time, and they don’t have to make her ridiculous – but they should at least let Matt ask her a question she can’t answer once in a while or maybe even express an unpopular opinion. My guess is that the only controversial “Christian” opinion she’ll ever express will be that she’s pro-life, which is really pretty safe. Much safer than making her a creationist, for instance, or making her say anything against gay rights.

I also totally agree that the show within the show has to be funny or it will undercut the credibility of the drama around it. If the characters are all talking about the brilliance of a sketch that we can plainly see is lame, then it starts to become a huge elephant in the room for the drama.

I know it seems like there’s been too much build up for the CC sketch to live up to expectations but I think you could have the show deal with that by having the chraracters comment on it themselves. Have Matt say that he wrote the sketch in an hour with no expectation that it was going to be anything special or important and have him worry that the audience will find it to be a letdown. If it turns out to be basically a harmless bit of fluff to which the network had a ridiculous overreaction, that would work for the drama.

Incidentally, what kind of mental images do people have of the sketch? Personally, I picture something like that Wife Swap woman who was always screeching that everything was “ungodly” who tore up her check – nothing necessarily insightful, just a couple of broad caricatures (like a married couple or something) going to a grocery store or a movie or whatever (I see it as a running sketch with the same two characters in different settings every time) and then going beserk about “ungodliness.” It could be written in such a way as to appear funny and silly but ultimately much ado about nothing. I think that’s the direction they should have gone.

59

[QUOTE=Otto]
Whatever. My point still stands.
[/QUOTE]

And myyyyy point is that it was weak storytelling. It was EASY. Painfully so.

Was the point of that really to contrast Harriet and the fundies? Because if so that makes it even weaker. That plot had so little to do with Harriet other than, what?, one scene where she signs off on it? Check out that drama!

The name of the sketch was just a missed opportunity to strengthen the plot point/make a good joke. That coupled with a musical number that we were clearly supposed to find much more amazing than anyone actually did AND that overall nothing interesting happened in the episode, doesn’t bode well for my continued interest in the show.

60

[QUOTE=Gadarene]
I felt like the level of coverage was appropriate – sort of a cross between last week’s coverage of the SNL cast upheaval, on the one hand, and the boycott of Ellen on the other. Not to mention the continuing media buzz that would follow Wes’s live meltdown…so throw in a dash of the Ashlee Simpson lip-synching thing, which people were talking about for at least a week.
[/QUOTE]

The promos for the next episode suggest religious politics and personal attacks are going to be recurring themes. The religious right make convenient antagonists for Sorkin, too much so for him to give them up easily.

I’m glad for the scene in which Matt tells the writers to start dressing and acting like adults, though it was watered down somewhat by him later expressing surprise and regret for his actions. Personally, I think it would be amusing for sounds of protest to come from devout fans of the Peripheral Vision Man sketches, showing that while Matt’n’Josh are allegedly hip and edgy and sharp, they don’t have perfect insight into what an audience will find funny.