-Jack is the network president, Jordan is the president of the entertainment division.
-When they made the homage to Network explicit (by referring to it in the dialog) it occurred to me that it would encourage a lot of people to go out and rent this wonderful movie.
-Earlier in the evening, on another network, someone was joking about ensemble dramas of the CSI genre and made a reference to the “improbably beautiful female agent” character. I’ve got to admit that when they introduced Jordan that’s the first thing I flashed on. I loved the show but it’s going to take me a while not to think of her as the “improbably beautiful network president” character.
-Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin are great, and they’re certainly not in direct competition with this show, but they’ve got a steep hill to climb to avoid unflattering comparisons.
I don’t know about their dating history, but Sorkin left The West Wing a year before Chenoweth joined the cast. I assumed the Harriet Hayes character was based on Victoria Jackson.
I know that. They still dated, and she did release a Christian album and perform on “The 700 Club.” It’s so obviously her that she would probably have grounds for a lawsuit.
I know, I love Donna Murphy… pity they underuse her like that.
For me, not even Sorokin can make me not hate Amanda Peet, and he made me like Tom Cruise in that one specific role. And I hate that she’s an integral part of the show. Maybe everyone else will hate her too and they’ll Mandy her, somehow.
There was some really interesting camera work too (someone’s sending the pilot to next year’s emmys).
Bradley Whitford wasn’t Josh, which I was worried about. He was this new guy, who happened to look very much like Josh, but not Josh. (I’m very amused that his wife is going to be on 30 Rock).
Other than that, it was great. I can’t wait until next week.
As noted, each of the talking heads referenced “Network” and Paddy Chayefsky. Peet turns to IIRC Weber and says something like “at least they know who Paddy Chayefsky is.”
I’m curious…McNeer said she needed Matt and Danny for two years. I would assume that that’s not two years real time, or it’s going to be a very short run for Studio 60.
I’m so used to having TV time mirror real time (airing Christmas episodes in December, the WW universe fairly matched real universe, as far as having elections roughly every four years) I’m wondering if after two years Matt and Danny will stick around, or they’ll stretch it out like MASH stretched out the Korean War.
I figured they’d tackle it when the two years were up, probably renewing their contract after a multi-episode battle.
I enjoyed it. I can’t wait until they’re done with setup and exposition and move on to the day-to-day operations a la Sports Night and West Wing. They’ll get there, I’m confident.
My roommate and I are having problems switching the names, of course. They’re going to be “Josh and Chandler” at least for a few more weeks, and the confusion of having a character named Danny not be Timothy Busfield is also going to throw me off. Thank Og that Matthew Perry is the character named Matt, or I’d be totally screwed. (And as an aside, does Sorkin have a friend named Danny, or something? Three shows, three prominent characters with the name.)
According to the linked article in brianjedi’s post, Jordan McDeere (Amanda Peet) is the network president and Jack Rudolph (Steven Weber) is the network chairman.
She might, except that the depiction of the character is reasonably flattering. She’s depicted as attractive, capable, intelligent, and (unlike Chenoweth) tall. In a one-upsmanship bout with Chubbsie, she clearly demolished him. I doubt Kristin’s all that upset about it. And I suspect Victoria’s downright gleeful!
I liked it, all in all. The dynamic between the Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford characters was good, esp. at the awards dinner and when they were sitting in that sawed-in-half fake taxicab. The Amanda Peet character has potential; the fact that she’s so good-looking is obviously something she uses to her advantage in boardroom politics. Underestimate her at your peril, seems to me. And what do you want to bet that when (not if) she turns around “Studio 60,” the oily network suit (Steven Weber) will take credit?
I’ll be tuning in again. And will we all be calling it “S4” or “S60”?
There was an article in New York Times on September 11 in which Sorkin confirmed that Hayes is based on Chenoweth (and Amanda Peet’s character is based on Jamie Tarses).
Ummmm, it’s done in every tv drama/dramedy. It’s meant to put action into scenes that might otherwise look boring because folks are just talking. To me it looks stupid. . . walking for the sake of walking.
Sorry, I disagree. I often have conversations with co-workers while walking down the hall. Sometimes when you’re busy that’s what you have to do.
I think I heard something wrong…in the opening monologue, DL was pumping up the audience, asking how many had watched the show in high school, how many in junior high, and how many since the show started in 1996? Then he said they were celebrating 20 years on the air.
Yes, you heard it wrong, but it was hardly your fault. Hughley’s dialect made it tricky, but I was able to hear “1986” - the second time we rewound it. My husband couldn’t hear it even a number of times later, and won’t even believe the closed captioning (which said “1986”).
Got to watch it last night. Overall I really enjoyed it. Sorkin still writes some of the tightest dialogue one will see anywhere, even if he does stretch credulity at times. I thought both Peet and Weber were a bit smirky, but hope that will wear off. Peet was also milking the starry eyed, seeing the future out in the distance thing a bit much. Brad Whitford is showing his age, which I think is a good thing. His face is becoming very interesting, a la John Spencer.
Did anyone else notice that Rob Corddry’s little brother, Nathan, is one of the key characters? (at first I thought it was DJ Qualls)
I like that Sorkin seems to be developing a nuanced Christian character. Between that and all of the potential sexual and pharmaceutical tension I doubt we’ll be lacking for plot lines in the near future.
Overall, I thought it was a pretty good show. It is going to be difficult to not associate Perry’s character with Chandler although I don’t know if we’re even supposed to. My problem with the Jordan character is that they seem to be setting her up as a fulltime, regular character. That would seem to be a little unrealistic for either the president of a network or entertainment (whichever she is).
References to “Network”: If you recorded it, replay the emergency meeting at network HQ when the new prez begins to assert her authority. She says something like, “They’re using our name and Paddy Chayefsky in the same sentence. That’ can’t be a bad thing.” Something like that.
