# Studio 60 - The Harriet Dinner II - 2/5 **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 5, 2007, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980 "2007-02-05T21:44:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/1 "2007-02-05T21:44:48Z")
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: There are so many good things about this show that I want to like. Perry’s doing a great job, Webber’s character is very interesting, [whoever is playing] Tom is doing a fantastic job. Peet is growing on me (never liked her before). But the way it’s all been put together: [Janice]Oh. My. God.[/j] The resolution of the rooftop romance was one of the most clichéed I’ve seen in primetime drama since the 80’s. Being a midle-aged white guy, I’m not sure how to react to the writer/performer conflict with Simon, but I firmly believe Simon is an asshole. From context, however, it seems I shouldn’t feel that way. I Love Perry and he’s doing an amazing job, but this was just too much. Why in the world would he keep carrying a torch for Harry? She’s not that smart, funny, charming, interesting, good looking, hot or anything else. Since Matt [the character] and Perry [the person] is close enough to nmy own age, I can safely say that a World Class Blowjob™ isn’t good enough a reason to keep dating a woman. There has to be more. A small part of this was entertaining, the majority felt like Sorkin has seen the writing on the wall and just wants it to go away. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/2 "2007-02-05T21:48:23Z")
Well, I’m confused. This episode won’t be broadcast for another five hours where I’m at. Where are you? ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/3 "2007-02-05T21:50:52Z")
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan] A small part of this was entertaining, the majority felt like Sorkin has seen the writing on the wall and just wants it to go away. [/QUOTE] [It’s close to going away](http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800007623): > [@TV Guide](#): > > A fresh release from NBC, cementing the plans to shelve Studio 60 as well as 30 Rock (!), to make room for two new series: > > "NBC’s new mid-season drama The Black Donnellys will premiere on Monday, March 5 (10-11 pm/ET) — following the hit drama Heroes — while the new comedy Andy Barker, P.I., starring Andy Richter, will debut on Thursday, March 15 (9:30-10 pm). > > “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip will return later this season on a date to be determined. 30 Rock will return… with original episodes on April 19, after Andy Barker completes its slate of episodes” and Alec Baldwin’s SAG Award gathers a good inch of dust. Ahem. ---
**Author:** ![jacquilynne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jacquilynne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacquilynne)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/4 "2007-02-05T21:55:32Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Well, I’m confused. This episode won’t be broadcast for another five hours where I’m at. Where are you? [/QUOTE] Possibly Canada? It aired here last night. There was a line in there from Harriet about doing things that were cruel under the guise of cuteness–I thought that was a particularly witty description of the whole Danny/Jordan thing. Of course, that didn’t stop the whole Danny/Jordan thing from coming to the obvious rom-com cliched conclusion ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/5 "2007-02-06T03:57:34Z")
We’ve… Harmed Aaron Sorkin somehow, haven’t we? We’ve hurt him in some very deep and profound way, without even knowing it, and this is his revenge. ---
**Author:** ![Kiros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/439d5e/32.png) [@Kiros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/6 "2007-02-06T04:01:11Z")
Heh. This was much better than last week’s, at least. It got back up into “frustratingly mediocre, because there are a lot of really good things happening” territory. But at least it wasn’t profoundly painful to watch, this week. ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/7 "2007-02-06T04:06:55Z")
That was pretty terrible. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/8 "2007-02-06T04:39:28Z")
Everybody I thought was totally wrong won. :mad: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/9 "2007-02-06T06:57:51Z")
I still maintain that if Sorking were to stop injecting this show with all the shitty soap opera elements, it would be pretty good. This episode, however, left me thinking, “What the hell was that?”. You’re right on the money, **Mehitabel**. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/10 "2007-02-06T07:06:07Z")
I didn’t see what Jordan wrote. Anybody care to clue me in? ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/11 "2007-02-06T07:18:10Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] I didn’t see what Jordan wrote. Anybody care to clue me in? [/QUOTE] I believe it was “I’m crazy about you!” ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/12 "2007-02-06T07:19:28Z")
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan] Being a midle-aged white guy, I’m not sure how to react to the writer/performer conflict with Simon, but I firmly believe Simon is an asshole. From context, however, it seems I shouldn’t feel that way. [/QUOTE] As a black woman, Simon is an asshole. I don’t think there’s a demographic perspective from which Simon is not at the very least an asshole. More importantly, Sorkin is an asshole and he should not be allowed to write for black characters _ever_ again. Ever. That was horrible on so many levels. Just awful. The whole setup, the build , the resolution. It was a giant load of shit all the way through. I can’t even express how wrong that was. Up until that point, I was merely chuckling at the awfulness of the Harriet/Danny/whoever the hell those people were “love plots” They were making me think perhaps he should go back to Science Schmience. It sucked, but he was nowhere near as bad at sketch comedy as he apparently is at romantic comedy. And then he dumped that load in the middle of the episode. Stopped chuckling at the badness. I’m done. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/13 "2007-02-06T07:28:44Z")
[QUOTE=amarinth] More importantly, Sorkin is an asshole and he should not be allowed to write for black characters _ever_ again. Ever. That was horrible on so many levels. Just awful. The whole setup, the build , the resolution. It was a giant load of shit all the way through. I can’t even express how wrong that was. [/QUOTE] The way most writers deal with this is to chicken out and not include black characters (See: virtually every TV show in the 50s and early 60s and a substantial majority of shows produced in the meantime). Sorkin, for his faults, is a big improvement over that. And hey, couldn’t you make essentially the same complaint about his female characters? I’d rather see the flawed product of his intact vision than something that had gone through multiple edits and committees (which this probably did). ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/14 "2007-02-06T07:51:14Z")
[QUOTE=Krokodil] I’d rather see the flawed product of his intact vision than something that had gone through multiple edits and committees (which this probably did). [/QUOTE] It is very well known that he doesn’t take notes or do committees. The only edits it went through were in his own head. This was all Sorkin. And no. I’d rather not include black characters if that’s all the writer can think to do with them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/15 "2007-02-06T08:01:07Z")
I’m very proud for having fought with my thumb until it submitted. For the first time, it did not press the little red button for this show. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/16 "2007-02-06T08:51:00Z")
Well, I’m hopeless. Besides, there is nothing on the tube these days other than endless amounts of CSI or some reality something blah. And, yes, I can spend my evenings scrounging around the specialty channels but I’m soaking up information so much of the time that I figure I’m allowed a little less ‘brain on’ time in the evenings. That said, I’m still in it for Danny. I think he did a great job of ‘deeply in love’. And I think the Danny/Jordan tale has possibility. Also the Jordan/Blonde hoochie tale. And yeah it might be a tad predictable but there’s not enough opposite it on Sunday nights for me to switch. I didn’t like the new shows this year but for 60 and the one with Lithgow that might’ve been a lot of fun. ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_Factotum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sean\_Factotum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sean_Factotum)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/17 "2007-02-06T13:24:34Z")
The one thing that went right for me was Cal finally blowing up at the animal rights woman. If you’re looking for a current example of Sorkin’s strengths, that whole arc was it. It was fun to watch Cal slowly grow more frustrated and stressed, and then finally eaching the point to threaten to eat the animals stuck under the stage. The ferret was afraid of the coyote, and the coyote was afraid of the snake. That was great. And Jack’s encounter with the Man from Macao was interesting. Who here said, on the Pahrump episodes, that he could understand English. “I understand a few words” “How few?” “All of them.” Everything else - just stop it, Aaron. Please? We get it already. We really do. We just don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![corkboard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@corkboard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/corkboard)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/18 "2007-02-06T13:43:21Z")
Well, I’ll be darned. The rooftop story resolved pretty much the way I predicted [last week](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8204566&postcount=20). (except for the ferret, I guess) That show sucked. Jordan, a pregnant woman, leaves the roof about 10 seconds before Danny does, yet he has to race down to the first floor at full speed to catch up with her, and she’s calmly leaning against the wall? She’d never make it. He would have caught up with her at the bottom of the first flight of stairs. The whole Matt/Harry lovefight thing was just blatherblatherblahblahblah. The only good thing about it is maybe that storyline is finally over. The Simon/black writer (what’s his name?) storyline made me hate Simon. The writer is supposedly an intellectual, a real thinking man’s comedian, but rather than give him something witty and pointed to say to serve as a counterpoint to Simon, Sorkin has him ready to throw down, then sits when he’s told to sit. So much for raising the level of quality dialogue in television. Oh- and a Hide-A-Key on the roof? Please. Just please. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/19 "2007-02-06T13:48:14Z")
Better than last week, but still not good. I think Sorkin was trying to use every romantic cliche possible in the rooftop scene and it grew tedious (but I can’t say it didn’t work – the actors managed to overcome the cliches). The plots were intriguing and well handled, but the ones that were intriguing weren’t well handled and those that were well handled weren’t intriguing.\* \*Apologies to the Grand Cham ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980/20 "2007-02-06T13:50:11Z")
[QUOTE=McNew] Oh- and a Hide-A-Key on the roof? Please. Just please. [/QUOTE] Well, actually, there _was_ a doorstop right there by the door that Cal (aka, anybody with any business being up there) knew to put under the door as soon as he stepped through it. I’ve worked places like that–you get stuck on the roof, it’s your own damn fault. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studio-60-the-harriet-dinner-ii-2-5/390980.md?page=2)