Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

[SuperJerk 0]

I can't help but get the feeling NBC fucked themselves by setting expectations too high with their "OMG THE IS THE BEST CAST SINCE FOR FUCKING EVER AND YOU WILL ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS BECAUSE ITS THE GREATEST SHOW OF THE YEAR!!!!" advertising campaign.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

wow, i guess everybody else thought last night's show was a disappointment, too.

 

last week was the first episode i've just felt bored watching, and i spent much of it doing homework instead. i'm sure the reporter will reappear later this season, but good lord, they're not hitting the emotional high they should with the harriet/matt relationship solely because they're not doing enough to string you along in between high points. long drawn-out conversations that mostly tell useless knowledge do not a hit show make.

[J.T. 0]

I have enjoyed every episode. I love that there is so many charicters and that they can expand on all of them so much. I love the many subplots and that its not just one big issue with everyone else just there.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I still enjoy this show each week. I like the reporter element. It gives a good way to get back stories on the characters without being completely hokie.

[SuperJerk 0]

Studio 60 Was Better When It First Came Out

 

By Artie Mayer

October 18, 2006

 

I remember when the famous phrase "Live from Studio 60, it's Friday Night In Hollywood!" used to mean something. Back then, when the show first came out, I'd stay home every Monday night just to make sure I didn't miss an episode. There such a buzz around the show in the weeks leading up to its premiere, because it was something new, something no one had ever seen before. But ever since Judd Hirsch left, the show's totally gone downhill.

 

Even by just watching the show in those early days, you felt like you were part of something special. It was truly the first of its kind—so revolutionary that it immediately spawned imitators like 30 Rock. I don't know whether it was better writing, hip musical guests like Three 6 Mafia, or the whole novelty of being the first-ever show about a late-night sketch-comedy show, but regardless of whatever made it so great in those days, it has certainly not aged well.

 

I don't even understand why anyone watches it anymore.

 

In Studio 60's heyday, they would do this thing where Judd would come out before the opening credits and deliver this long, angry monologue about the current state of network television. I used to sit in front of the TV, just waiting for him to unleash his famous catchphrase, "It's not going to be a very good show tonight." But they haven't done that for a while.

 

I wish they would just get rid of this current cast and start from scratch.

 

Back when the show first hit the airwaves, they were constantly coming up with new, interesting characters, like Amanda Peet's manipulative but well-intentioned NBS president "Jordan McDeere," or Matthew Perry's hilarious stressed-out-writer character "Matt Albie."

 

I'd say they introduced eight to 10 great characters in the first episode alone, but then they kept using those same exact characters in every single show. Sure, they put them in slightly different situations and gave them new dialogue, but they got really old really fast. How many times do I have to see a "Matt and Danny" scene or a "Jordan and Jack" scene? Three or four times per show? It's just lazy.

 

They've fallen into the trap of using the same tired old formula week in and week out, just because they know it works. Every episode, it's a cold open that sets up a conflict, followed by the opening credits, followed by acts one through six, almost always ending with a neat little resolution and a new cliffhanger. And they keep drawing on the same overused topics—TV networks, network sponsors, sketch comedy… Talk about milking a premise for all it's worth. Okay, we get it already. I understand this is the format that made the show popular, but you can't rely on it forever.

 

Maybe it was just a matter of the show being in the right place at the right time. The nation was still reeling from the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the Pope had just made those insensitive comments about the Muslim religion, and we were all on edge about the E. coli spinach scare. Studio 60 provided the escape we needed every Monday night. But as the times have changed, the show just seems less and less relevant.

 

Then again, maybe it's me. Maybe I've just matured and my tastes have changed since it first premiered, and the show was always this bad. Maybe if I go back and watch the first episode again, I'll realize that it's not as good as I thought it was when I was younger.

 

Oh well, I guess I'll still keep watching though, since there's really nothing else on Mondays at 10 p.m. But I just can't shake the feeling I've seen the same four or five shows over and over since it debuted.

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54117

[J.T. 0]

That wasn't funny.

[Mecha Mummy 0]

The concept of the article is funny. The execution, especially in the length, mucks it up.

[iggymcfly 0]

The concept of the article is funny. The execution, especially in the length, mucks it up.

 

That's true of pretty much every single article ever written for the Onion. Well except for the ones where even the concept's not funny.

[DokDoyle 0]

Just watched the next episode...and I didn't laugh once. but if the shows keep being this good, I don't care if I ever laugh at them again. I watched it and said "Wow" something I haven't done, since West Wing.

 

Love it.

[SuperJerk 0]

That wasn't funny.

 

Oh, SNAP! J.T. didn't think it was "funny." He sure told me! And, as we can see, he made quite a well executed argument telling us why. Your clever use of the contraction "wasn't" in front of the word "funny" was quite insightful. Thank you for posting that, J.T. I feel really enlightened by your explanation. Please feel free, the future, to educate us on what color you think the grass is, in your typical persuasive style. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

I don't understand how we can have three consecutive posts discussing why the article wasn't "funny," but not a single one of you bothered to address what the point of the article was or whether that point was valid. I mean, I didn't laugh either, but I can at least appreciate the irony of using tired, cliched criticisms of Saturday Night Live to describe a show that is (in part) a weekly criticism of Saturday Night Live. But, hey, no discussion of that.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

That wasn't funny.

 

Oh, SNAP! J.T. didn't think it was "funny." He sure told me! And, as we can see, he made quite a well executed argument telling us why. Your clever use of the contraction "wasn't" in front of the word "funny" was quite insightful. Thank you for posting that, J.T. I feel really enlightened by your explanation. Please feel free, the future, to educate us on what color you think the grass is, in your typical persuasive style. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

I don't understand how we can have three consecutive posts discussing why the article wasn't "funny," but not a single one of you bothered to address what the point of the article was or whether that point was valid. I mean, I didn't laugh either, but I can at least appreciate the irony of using tired, cliched criticisms of Saturday Night Live to describe a show that is (in part) a weekly criticism of Saturday Night Live. But, hey, no discussion of that.

 

Dude...let it go.

[Guest Felonies!]

The Larry Sanders show was pretty good.

[J.T. 0]

That wasn't funny.

 

Oh, SNAP! J.T. didn't think it was "funny." He sure told me! And, as we can see, he made quite a well executed argument telling us why. Your clever use of the contraction "wasn't" in front of the word "funny" was quite insightful. Thank you for posting that, J.T. I feel really enlightened by your explanation. Please feel free, the future, to educate us on what color you think the grass is, in your typical persuasive style. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

I don't understand how we can have three consecutive posts discussing why the article wasn't "funny," but not a single one of you bothered to address what the point of the article was or whether that point was valid. I mean, I didn't laugh either, but I can at least appreciate the irony of using tired, cliched criticisms of Saturday Night Live to describe a show that is (in part) a weekly criticism of Saturday Night Live. But, hey, no discussion of that.

 

You obviosuly posted an article that was trying to be funny. It was not, so I thought I should say so. It struck me as odd that someone would post that, since it didnt achieve its goal.

 

You can relax, hommie.

[SuperJerk 0]

Thank goodness you're here to tell us these things.

[Guest Felonies!]

Stop acting like a bunch of word-that-got-me-suspendeds.

[SuperJerk 0]

What word was that?

[bob_barron 0]

rekcuskcoc

[Dr. Zaius 0]

I actually thought the article was funny.

 

SuerJerk's problem is that, even when he's actually right, he finds the most obnoxious way possible to make his point, thus negating whatever persuasive impact his argument might have had with a layer of abbrasiveness.

[SuperJerk 0]

And your problem is that you're a damn, dirty ape. Now get your stinking paws off of me.

[Guest Hotbutter Spoontoaster]

That wasn't funny.

Oh, SNAP! J.T. didn't think it was "funny." He sure told me! And, as we can see, he made quite a well executed argument telling us why. Your clever use of the contraction "wasn't" in front of the word "funny" was quite insightful. Thank you for posting that, J.T. I feel really enlightened by your explanation. Please feel free, the future, to educate us on what color you think the grass is, in your typical persuasive style. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

I don't understand how we can have three consecutive posts discussing why the article wasn't "funny," but not a single one of you bothered to address what the point of the article was or whether that point was valid. I mean, I didn't laugh either, but I can at least appreciate the irony of using tired, cliched criticisms of Saturday Night Live to describe a show that is (in part) a weekly criticism of Saturday Night Live. But, hey, no discussion of that.

It wasn't funny.

[J.T. 0]

Just watched the next episode...and I didn't laugh once. but if the shows keep being this good, I don't care if I ever laugh at them again. I watched it and said "Wow" something I haven't done, since West Wing.

 

Love it.

 

Tonights episode was amazing. Wells being a sleezeball was great because Harry saw it coming but wanted to believe otherwise. The comedy club ending could have been cliche, but the speech in the dressing room prevented that. Little things like Jordan wanting friends splashed in there makes the show go by real quick with never a dull moment. I still wish I saw more Danny, but I was real glad Cal got a real storyline.

 

The little things were great and thats what makes this show better than most.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Best episode of the season. Hughley is fast-becoming the scene stealer on this show and him along with Cordry and Busfield completely made last nights episode. The moments with Cal and the WWII veteran and Cordry and his parents were some hella-emotional stuff and it didn't seem forced that the comedy was taking a backseat to the three revolving storylines in this episode.

 

Keep forgetting we get it early up here. Sorry.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I liked Jack being all "fite me u poser" to Danny.

 

A little ridiculous that Corddry's character was all emo about the difference between skits & sketches, considering most of the sketches we've seen aren't exactly high-brow humor (Nic Cage - couples counselor?). No to mention Corddry himself spent a bunch of time running around in a lobster costume.

 

But other than that, that was the best show of the season so far, for pretty much all the stuff Curry & JT touched on above.

[starvenger 0]

Just watched the next episode...and I didn't laugh once. but if the shows keep being this good, I don't care if I ever laugh at them again. I watched it and said "Wow" something I haven't done, since West Wing.

 

Love it.

 

Tonights episode was amazing. Wells being a sleezeball was great because Harry saw it coming but wanted to believe otherwise. The comedy club ending could have been cliche, but the speech in the dressing room prevented that. Little things like Jordan wanting friends splashed in there makes the show go by real quick with never a dull moment. I still wish I saw more Danny, but I was real glad Cal got a real storyline.

 

The little things were great and thats what makes this show better than most.

I like the fact that the ep started fleshing out some of the supporting characters like Tom and Cal a bit more. I think the show works better when it's not so sketch-centric.

 

I still think the comedy club ending was cliche, and you knew it was gonna happen based on Simon's speech to Matt. I can live with it though...

[iggymcfly 0]

I didn't like this episode very well. I thought it was just a little more boring than last week. The subplot with the guy's parents visiting and the WWII vet were both boring and cliche. I don't care about characters who won't be coming back, and I don't care about the "daddy issues" for the 15th most important person the show either. The stuff that stuck to the real cast was interesting, but it seemed like there was a ton of boring filler.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I agree with Iggy. I understand what they were trying to do with the WWII guy and the blackballed people, but it took wayyyyyyyy too long to get there. Also, the stuff with Jordan trying to make friends was almost painful to watch.

[KingPK 0]

I don't care about characters who won't be coming back, and I don't care about the "daddy issues" for the 15th most important person the show either.

 

So where does "YOUR BROTHER IS STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF AFGHANISTAN!" rank on the "HER FATHER IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!" scale of really bad, overacted lines on network TV shows?

 

This show has it's moments, but if I hear "This is the best show EVAR and if you don't think so it's because you aren't smart enough to understand it" from the more pretentious among us one more time, I'll scream. It doesn't help that when they actually show a sketch, it makes the whole writing staff (along with Danny and Perry's character) look like hacks.

[iggymcfly 0]

At least 3.0 "her father is the district attorney". It was just so random and pointless. I instantly stopped thinking about the characters as soon as the line was uttered, and started thinking "Oh my god, this show's going downhill fast. I can't believe someone thought this was a good idea." I was actually angry at the writers for insulting my intelligence enough to think that I'd care about a supporting character's brother who had never been mentioned before and likely never would be again.

[Mecha Mummy 0]

I don't care about characters who won't be coming back, and I don't care about the "daddy issues" for the 15th most important person the show either.

 

So where does "YOUR BROTHER IS STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF AFGHANISTAN!" rank on the "HER FATHER IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!" scale of really bad, overacted lines on network TV shows?

 

But do either of those lines really compare to "They made you... SUCK...?" Really now.

 

I agree that that line was really random, though. I actually liked much of the episode, but that line was really random as far as delivery goes.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

what was random about the line, exactly? it served its purpoe to highlight the father's contempt for his son's profession, as well as his father's lack of respect for him in comparison with his brother. you're not supposed to care about the brother, you're supposed to care about the main character in this particular story, and the father's love of the brother hurts the main character in the story. there's nothing random about the line itself, as it fits pretty damn well with the story that was being told.