Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip...first episode was GREAT
Thomas Dzubin
At the risk of sounding like I'm asto-turfing... holy crap... the first
episode of Studio 60 was REALLY good. (I'm in Canada where it plays
a day earlier than the US). It basically took my opinion of the
current sorry state of SNL and ran with it. (I haven't watched SNL
since the mid-1990s)
If you a fan of the West Wing, you are going to love the writing although
it isn't quite as fast paced ...lots of jokes too...Matthew Perry
gets lots of good lines
(for a second, I thought it WAS a West Wing / Friends crossover. Amanda
Peet kinda looks like Courtney Cox. Good to see Timothy Busfield again
too)
(although the crack about Vancouver not being like anything was
pretty cruel...Vancouver = Boston California?)
Odd little Ed Asner cameo...he had like ten seconds of screen time, but
got "Guest Star" billing?
Thomas Dzubin
Vancouver, Calgary, or Saskatoon
Anim8rFSK
Thomas Dzubin <dzu...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
Yep, I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Anthony D. Langford
Oh I loved it. Fantastic cast (Probably one of the strongest casts on
television), smart and funny writing. But, I loved the West Wing and
Sports Night, so it's no surprise to me. I just hope NBC is patient
and gives the show a chance to make it.
Anthony
Rhino
"Anthony D. Langford" <anthonyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158553856.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I never saw Sports Night since I've never cared about sports but I'm
thinking of checking it out if it's available for download or whatever.
Tonight's episode of Studio 60 reminded me very much of the golden cays of
West Wing when the writing was at its best. I am really looking forward to
seeing more of it.
>I just hope NBC is patient
> and gives the show a chance to make it.
>
Agreed!! It would be a real shame if they killed this after only a few
episodes. If the remaining shows are anything like the pilot, I think it's
going to be a really great show.
--
Rhino
Ar Q
> Oh I loved it. Fantastic cast (Probably one of the strongest casts on
> television), smart and funny writing. But, I loved the West Wing and
> Sports Night, so it's no surprise to me. I just hope NBC is patient
> and gives the show a chance to make it.
>
> Anthony
It is no better than Sports Night. Let's see how much a fake TV studio
setting appeals to the average Joe.
Obveeus
"Ar Q" <Arthu...@hottmail.com> wrote:
>> Oh I loved it. Fantastic cast (Probably one of the strongest casts on
>> television), smart and funny writing. But, I loved the West Wing and
>> Sports Night, so it's no surprise to me. I just hope NBC is patient
>> and gives the show a chance to make it.
>
> setting appeals to the average Joe.
Sports Night was a fantastic show. The only problem it had was that most
Americans aren't smart enough to keep up with fast paced dialog and humor
that doesn't revolve around prat falls, insults, and fart jokes.
As for Studio 60...I don't think there is any chance of the network giving
up quickly on it. It is their chosen one for this season and they will do
their best to make it fly...even if it takes time.
mike...@gmail.com
Judd Hirsch (it's back to Numb3rs for him) part, it was kind of boring.
Anim8rFSK
Brandy Alexandre <bran...@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
> Oops! Missed it. Does it repeat?
We've been watching online. On-air starts tonight!
Anim8rFSK
Brandy Alexandre <bran...@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote:
> Oh! Thanks. :) I hate this online crap. Apparently there's some
> Battlestar stuff online that won't be on air?
Yeah, but it might be on the DVDs :-D
It's as stupid as the
> X-Files movie requiring you to have been a show watcher, and vice
> versa. Can we keep all TV programs on TV and all online programs
> online and stop expecting people to chase the crap around?
They are making it difficult, but in fairness, the people that watched
Studio 60 already are, for the most part, likely 'cheating'
Obveeus
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> Brandy Alexandre <bran...@kittylittercomcast.net> wrote:
>> Oh! Thanks. :) I hate this online crap. Apparently there's some
>> Battlestar stuff online that won't be on air?
>
> Yeah, but it might be on the DVDs :-D
...and it is showing up in the ad promos currently running on SciFi. If you
watch SciFi 24 hrs/day you will probably be able to catch all the 'online
bonus' footage.
> They are making it difficult, but in fairness, the people that watched
> Studio 60 already are, for the most part, likely 'cheating'
Sure, they are cheating, but we still don't know which of them knocked up
Ms. Peet.
jayembee
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>
>>> Oops! Missed it. Does it repeat?
>>
>> We've been watching online. On-air starts tonight!
I believe the O.P. of this particular thread saw it on TV in Canada,
where it aired a day earlier.
> I hate this online crap. Apparently there's some Battlestar stuff
> online that won't be on air? It's as stupid as the X-Files movie
> requiring you to have been a show watcher, and vice versa.
The BSG episodes are incidental. They are an interesting side story,
but they aren't required viewing in order to follow the new season's
episodes.
On the other hand, the story in the EUREKA "webisodes" was actually
better than any of the on-air episodes.
-- jayembee
Barry Margolin
"Rhino" <no.offline.c...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I never saw Sports Night since I've never cared about sports
What gave you the impression Sports Night was about sports? It was
about the behind-the-scenes politics of a sports show. I totally
dislike sports as well, but the show was still hilarious. Once in a
great while I didn't understand some of the sports references, but it
rarely detracted from enjoying the show. Similarly, I occasionally
don't understand some of the government politics in West Wing, but the
show was still extremely satisfying. These types of shows are about how
the personalities interact, and the sports show, white house, and now TV
comedy show are mainly just backdrops.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
JXStern
<dzu...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>episode of Studio 60 was REALLY good. (I'm in Canada where it plays
>a day earlier than the US).
Canada is an entire earth rotation in front of the US? This is one
twisted world!
Anim8rFSK
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
really? are those still available?
alte...@yahoo.com
> Oh I loved it. Fantastic cast (Probably one of the strongest casts on
> television), smart and funny writing.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. I was hooked after the opening segment. And
it just kept going strong the rest of the hour. Best line was from
Amanda Peet's character: "I've already got a dual-masturbation show in
active development, so..."
I am a tad bit worried that Perry and Whitford will just play their
respective characters from Friends and The West Wing, however.
ray o'hara
"Anthony D. Langford" <anthonyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158553856.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> television), smart and funny writing. But, I loved the West Wing and
> Sports Night, so it's no surprise to me. I just hope NBC is patient
> and gives the show a chance to make it.
>
> Anthony
>
if eps stay at this level it will survive. it got mushy at the end but it
had to really. the opening 45 minutes were the best tv 45 minutes in a
while.
i'll watch
ray o'hara
"Ar Q" <Arthu...@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:lHqPg.13627$xQ1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
its not a show for joe six pack. its for the west wing viewer. its for
liberal leaning types.
ray o'hara
"Thomas Dzubin" <dzu...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:eel0ph$hs$1...@luna.vcn.bc.ca...
>
> (although the crack about Vancouver not being like anything was
> pretty cruel...Vancouver = Boston California?)
>
> Odd little Ed Asner cameo...he had like ten seconds of screen time, but
> got "Guest Star" billing?
>
> Thomas Dzubin
> Vancouver, Calgary, or Saskatoon
speacking of vancouver
here in boston mass they run da vinci inquest. who says you frostbacks
can't make quality TV.
i've gotten quite addicted to it. it is a good as any show on TV{better
actually}
it suffers because people get confused because of the similar name of the
horrible da vinci code and don't watch it.
mjd
I really dug it, but it still left me with an eerie feeling along the
lines of, if they were going to do this show, why the hell couldn't
they just keep doing WW? I know, things get tired, they get old, we
move on, the viewing public doesn't care about politics as much as TV
and Hollywood... I guess I should be thankful to have WW in sheep's
clothing - it's better than nothing, and better than anything else on
TV now that Deadwood is over.
Hunter Rose
I was planning on skipping the BSG webisodes, but I didn't
even *know* they did the same for "Eureka".
HR
ray o'hara
"mjd" <mdeve...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158635512.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
west wing was done,. time to move on. soon they would have had "the white
house drunk told his daughter that he is the president and when she comes to
visit everybody pretends he is to save his face,hillarity ensues" episode
that every series eventually runs .
jayembee
>> On the other hand, the story in the EUREKA "webisodes" was actually
>> better than any of the on-air episodes.
>
> really? are those still available?
Yep. http://www.scifi.com/eureka/video/webisodes/
-- jayembee
David
I came across a bundle of the first 7 on a torrent site.
jayembee
> I really dug it, but it still left me with an eerie feeling along the
> lines of, if they were going to do this show, why the hell couldn't
> they just keep doing WW? I know, things get tired, they get old, we
> move on, the viewing public doesn't care about politics as much as TV
> and Hollywood... I guess I should be thankful to have WW in sheep's
> clothing - it's better than nothing,
Quite frankly, neither SPORTS NIGHT nor THE WEST WING appealed to me,
but I love STUDIO 60.
> and better than anything else on TV now that Deadwood is over.
Nah. Now that DEADWOOD is off, HBO replaced it with the *real* best
thing on TV: THE WIRE.
-- jayembee
Anim8rFSK
Oh, I disagree. I loved it and I'm hardl a liberal leaner.
Anim8rFSK
"mjd" <mdeve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Dzubin wrote:
> > I've gotten pretty jaded by TV the last few years, but...
> > At the risk of sounding like I'm asto-turfing... holy crap... the first
> > episode of Studio 60 was REALLY good. (I'm in Canada where it plays
> > a day earlier than the US). It basically took my opinion of the
> > current sorry state of SNL and ran with it. (I haven't watched SNL
> > since the mid-1990s)
> >
> > If you a fan of the West Wing, you are going to love the writing although
> > it isn't quite as fast paced ...lots of jokes too...Matthew Perry
> > gets lots of good lines
> > (for a second, I thought it WAS a West Wing / Friends crossover. Amanda
> > Peet kinda looks like Courtney Cox. Good to see Timothy Busfield again
> > too)
> >
> > (although the crack about Vancouver not being like anything was
> > pretty cruel...Vancouver = Boston California?)
> >
> > Odd little Ed Asner cameo...he had like ten seconds of screen time, but
> > got "Guest Star" billing?
> >
> > Thomas Dzubin
> > Vancouver, Calgary, or Saskatoon
>
> I really dug it, but it still left me with an eerie feeling along the
> lines of, if they were going to do this show, why the hell couldn't
> they just keep doing WW?
Term limits. :-)
jayembee
>> Yep. http://www.scifi.com/eureka/video/webisodes/
>
> I came across a bundle of the first 7 on a torrent site.
Prologue through #6, right? Yeah, I got that. I just figured it was
easier to point people to official page. I wish someone would torrent
#7. It's a hell of a lot more viewable, even in low-res DivX, than
through Real(Shit)Player.
-- jayembee
Mark Nobles
> I never saw Sports Night since I've never cared about sports but I'm
> thinking of checking it out if it's available for download or whatever.
The fun thing about Sports is that there is never any sports in it. Oh,
they talk about them some, but they talk about food at least as much.
> Tonight's episode of Studio 60 reminded me very much of the golden cays of
> West Wing when the writing was at its best. I am really looking forward to
> seeing more of it.
>
> >I just hope NBC is patient
> > and gives the show a chance to make it.
> >
>
> Agreed!! It would be a real shame if they killed this after only a few
> episodes. If the remaining shows are anything like the pilot, I think it's
> going to be a really great show.
I don't think it is going to take a lot of patience. I think the
numbers tomorrow will be impressive.
Michael Johnson
wrote:
Same. Both TWW and Sports Night are for people who admire good
writing. Unfortunately.. there aren't a lot of those around!
My parents were as religious conservative as they come and Wednesday
night they'd never miss The West Wing. Sorkin has somehow mastered how
to write liberal without pissing everyone off. He doesn't convert
anybody.. his shows are just immensely watchable. Part of it I think
is like JMS he usually presented the other side in his writing with
some respect and without resorting to caricatures or stereotypes.
And he always seems to bring the funny. Periphreal Man lol.
-MJ
Michael Johnson
<dzu...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>If you a fan of the West Wing, you are going to love the writing although
>it isn't quite as fast paced ...lots of jokes too...Matthew Perry
>gets lots of good lines
>(for a second, I thought it WAS a West Wing / Friends crossover. Amanda
>Peet kinda looks like Courtney Cox. Good to see Timothy Busfield again
>too)
Also nice to see a former Deadwood guest star again.
-MJ
yks...@yahoo.com
some respect true but he didn't really write much from a conservative
point of view in TWW. He is just masterful at making liberal sound good
and at telling a wonderful story. I loved almost every episode of TWW.
I'd realize it's a load of hooey but watch it anyways...and then watch
it again and again in reruns. Great writing beats out any political
bias which was why it was so popular. We'll see if he can do the same
in Studio 60... I hope so.
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Elle
> viewer.
Not a chance. The show is Sorkin's childish whine, "I was so
persecuted for being an artist with a little addiction
problem."
Production of S60SS denotes exactly that against which last
night's plotline railed: Writing simply to make a buck.
Michael Johnson
Nah.. not really.. TWW was a show laden pretty well with liberal
arguments. But there is a world of difference between that.. and
writers who stack the deck towards the liberal cause to make their
point. Any other writer and the christian would have just been the
punchline to every joke. But watch when the drunk cast member goes off
on her because of religion... she verbally TKO's him in about 5
seconds flat. By having strong characters with conviction and an
ability to argue their point, even when his own politics don't agree
with them, it puts Sorkin head and shoulders above other writers and
tends to make the show watchable by more then just the liberal
minority.
>He is just masterful at making liberal sound good and at telling a wonderful
>story. I loved almost every episode of TWW.
I still don't buy it. What sets him apart isn't making liberal sound
good but that is he is very capable of arguing the other side as part
of the argument. Would A Few Good Men have been nearly as effective if
the Colonel was just a pushover?
Ainsley Hayes was another strong conservative character who could
argue her side.
Heck.. part of the funny in TWW was that Rob Lowe was a master
debater.. until of course he came up against strong women and then
they used him for a rag doll. Its more about strong personalities and
the clash of arguments between them then trying to promote a cause
which is why Sorkin's writing works.
-MJ
Obveeus
"Elle" <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote
>> its not a show for joe six pack. its for the west wing viewer.
>
> Not a chance. The show is Sorkin's childish whine, "I was so persecuted
> for being an artist with a little addiction problem."
Was it Sorkin's childish whine as you claim or was it Sorkin showing people
that addictions really can take away some opportunities? The character lost
the ability to direct the movie he wanted to direct and had to settle for a
job he didn't particularly want...as well as having been exposed to scorn
and such from his new peers/coworkers.
Yeechang Lee
jayembee wrote:
> Quite frankly, neither SPORTS NIGHT nor THE WEST WING appealed to me,
> but I love STUDIO 60.
I wouldn't say "love" yet, but otherwise M3 T00. Couldn't get into
either of Sorkin's previous efforts, but I like what I see of this one
so far.
--
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~ylee/> PERTH ----> *
Homemade 2.8TB RAID 5 storage array:
<URL:http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=slrnd1g04a.5mt.ylee%40pobox.com>
lambertman
Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>
> Oops! Missed it. Does it repeat?
There are a couple of reruns scheduled for Bravo... I believe it was 11
PM Wednesday and Sunday nights.
-C
Newport
From: a...@b.com (Michael Johnson)
her side.
An unappealing character and actress. This Christian plot seems hokey.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Michael Johnson
wrote:
>
>From: a...@b.com (Michael Johnson)
>Ainsley Hayes was another strong conservative character who could argue
>her side.
>---------------------------------
>An unappealing character and actress. This Christian plot seems hokey.
Once again.. its all subjective :>. If you think your opinion of
actors and actresses matter to me i'd save your wrists. Actually spend
your time addressing shows themselves rather then your own personal
pet peeves. Not sure you have the ability or want to do that though.
-MJ
Michael Johnson
wrote:
>This liberal was not that impressed.
Of course not.. you would prefer more singing to the choir.
-MJ
Michael Johnson
wrote:
>I'd rather have an extention of the last season of WEST WING.
So do you actually have constructive thoughts beyond just spewing out
subjective one-liners you put no thought behind?
-MJ
bkl...@yahoo.com
Thomas Dzubin wrote:
> I've gotten pretty jaded by TV the last few years, but...
> At the risk of sounding like I'm asto-turfing... holy crap... the first
> episode of Studio 60 was REALLY good. (I'm in Canada where it plays
> a day earlier than the US). It basically took my opinion of the
> current sorry state of SNL and ran with it. (I haven't watched SNL
> since the mid-1990s)
>
> it isn't quite as fast paced ...lots of jokes too...Matthew Perry
> gets lots of good lines
> (for a second, I thought it WAS a West Wing / Friends crossover. Amanda
> Peet kinda looks like Courtney Cox. Good to see Timothy Busfield again
> too)
>
> pretty cruel...Vancouver = Boston California?)
It just struck me a as bitterness as the bean counters of Hollywood
want all the creatives to film in Canada and no doubt the creatives
prefer to be in LA, near their homes, friends, family and the Ivy.
Nancy2
Thomas Dzubin wrote:
> I've gotten pretty jaded by TV the last few years, but...
> At the risk of sounding like I'm asto-turfing... holy crap... the first
> episode of Studio 60 was REALLY good. (I'm in Canada where it plays
Absolutely loved it - only drama I've watched in the past couple years
- I abandoned West Wing when Sorkin left. I wonder how long he'll be
entertained by writing Studio 60 before he decamps?
N.
bkl...@yahoo.com
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <eelbfo$tu9$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "Rhino" <no.offline.c...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > I never saw Sports Night since I've never cared about sports
>
Maybe he got the impression because it was called "Sports night?"
Just a shot in the dark.
David
wrote:
I remember the tagline ABC used: "Sports Night is about sports just
like Charlie's Angels was about law enforcement."
philcycles
bkl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It just struck me a as bitterness as the bean counters of Hollywood
> want all the creatives to film in Canada and no doubt the creatives
> prefer to be in LA, near their homes, friends, family and the Ivy.
Sorkin has the juice to film the show in LA. Why wouldn't we be bitter
about our jobs-I'm a sound mixer-going to Canada. No one but a Canadian
can work on the tecnical side in Canada and the government gives big
tax breaks and subsidies for filming there. Makes sense for the bean
counters but screws us.
Phil Brown
ray o'hara
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eeotor$jm7$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
you have to be really stupid to get caught with coke in your system by a
physical. it is out of your system in 3 days, 4 at most. generally you know
when the check-up will be. coke isn't like heroin or nicotine where you get
really nutty without it. the worst crackhead can go 3-4 days without any.
Vocalize
After 50+ years, most of the TV landscape is populated by bland and
formulaic - - drawn around this year's gimmick or flavor-of-the-moment or
yesterday's movie star. Yet America seems comforted by variations on a
theme. . Nothing too challenging or thought-provoking. . Just keep the
pleasant diversions coming. .
When a writer of Sorkin's caliber mounts a new show, it's reason to
celebrate. Studio 60 may not be everyone's cup o'meat, but . . .damn, the
writing is sharp.
ray o'hara
<bkl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158680992.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > (although the crack about Vancouver not being like anything was
> > pretty cruel...Vancouver = Boston California?)
>
> It just struck me a as bitterness as the bean counters of Hollywood
> want all the creatives to film in Canada and no doubt the creatives
> prefer to be in LA, near their homes, friends, family and the Ivy.
>
the worst example was jakie chan's 'rumble in the bronx' vancourver where
it was filmed looks so much like new york.
ray o'hara
"Nancy2" <nancy-...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:1158681197....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
any writer only has so many ideas on where to go with any show.
Brad Filippone
: On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:37:37 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Dzubin
: <dzu...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
: >episode of Studio 60 was REALLY good. (I'm in Canada where it plays
: >a day earlier than the US).
: Canada is an entire earth rotation in front of the US? This is one
: twisted world!
Shows airing on different nights in Canada and the U.S. is not exactly a
new thing.
Brad
Obveeus
Sounds like the same folks that can't watch 'How I Met Your Mother' because
of the show's title.
Obveeus
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote;
> you have to be really stupid to get caught with coke in your system by a
> physical. it is out of your system in 3 days, 4 at most. generally you
> know
> when the check-up will be. coke isn't like heroin or nicotine where you
> get
> really nutty without it. the worst crackhead can go 3-4 days without any.
In the case of the character on the show...he was clean for 11 years. Maybe
using coke right before his physical isn't a sign of 'stupid', but a sign of
'self-destructive'? He was about to direct his own movie... got scared of
the responsibility... messed up his shot because of it.
Dawn
get the first episode of Studio 60 on DVD from Netflix -- they usually
have a free trial thingie going if you're not a member. I saw it back
in early August. Can't wait for the 2nd episode!
-Dawn
bkl...@yahoo.com
Dude, total sympathy here, I didn't mean Sorkin via Perry's riff was
not on target and justified.
I've watched NYC's film industry boom then bust. Bloomberg finally
addressed some of the cost issues (via tax breaks) that led all those
film productions to move to TO & Vanc and finally it's back on the rise
again here. Hopefully your state will do it's best to address them as
well.
David Johnston
wrote:
But you just said he isn't doing that. He's writing to complain about
being persecuted yadda yadda.
Tim McDaniel
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <eelbfo$tu9$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "Rhino" <no.offline.c...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I never saw Sports Night since I've never cared about sports
I've never cared about sports, but I really liked Sports Night.
>It was about the behind-the-scenes politics of a sports show.
"Politics" is a dangerous word to use, given its negative
connotations. It's behind-the-scenes of a TV sports-news show with
interesting characters and snappy dialog. It could be really really
funny, and sometimes touching, and sometimes interesting (I liked
hearing the technical discussions, like how to schedule the stories in
an hour show).
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Elle
>> "Elle" <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote
>> >> its not a show for joe six pack. its for the west wing
>> >> viewer.
>> >
>> > Not a chance. The show is Sorkin's childish whine, "I
>> > was so persecuted
>> > for being an artist with a little addiction problem."
>>
>> Was it Sorkin's childish whine as you claim or was it
>> Sorkin showing
> people
>> that addictions really can take away some opportunities?
Unless one is goddamn James Joyce or maybe Truman Capote,
self-absorption has never been fashionable, as art, luncheon
conversation, or internet posts.
> > The character
> > lost
>> the ability to direct the movie he wanted to direct and
>> had to settle for
> a
>> job he didn't particularly want...as well as having been
>> exposed to scorn
>> and such from his new peers/coworkers.
>>
>>
>
>
> you have to be really stupid to get caught with coke in
> your system by a
> physical. it is out of your system in 3 days, 4 at most.
> generally you know
> when the check-up will be. coke isn't like heroin or
> nicotine where you get
> really nutty without it. the worst crackhead can go 3-4
> days without any.
I do not object to a person having flaws (addictions or
whatever). I do object to a person dwelling on himself,
especially when it is attempted art.
ray o'hara
<bkl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158689594.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
massachusetts and boston were notoriously tough, but changes in the laws
have helped. where i live, a town next to boston has had many scenes filmed
here when hollywood comes. the town does not require a permit if they don't
block a public way and we rent the endicott estate a town owned mansion out
a reasonable price, the hotle interior scenes in the movie state and main
were filmed there and the TVseries spenser for hire used it several times..
hollywood likes cheap. it doesn't hurt that 'national amusments' the parent
company of viacom is headquartered here either.
bkl...@yahoo.com
ray o'hara wrote:
> massachusetts and boston were notoriously tough, but changes in the laws
> have helped. where i live, a town next to boston has had many scenes filmed
> here when hollywood comes. the town does not require a permit if they don't
> block a public way and we rent the endicott estate a town owned mansion out
> a reasonable price, the hotle interior scenes in the movie state and main
> were filmed there and the TVseries spenser for hire used it several times..
> hollywood likes cheap. it doesn't hurt that 'national amusments' the parent
> company of viacom is headquartered here either.
I'm glad NYC is working with the tv & film industry to bring them back,
but I sudder to imagine what would happen if we too, required no
permit. Oy, even with strict permitting productions are still
bothersome and cumbersome to the town.
Obveeus
"Elle" <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Unless one is goddamn James Joyce or maybe Truman Capote, self-absorption
> has never been fashionable, as art, luncheon conversation, or internet
> posts.
Internet posts...like when someone wanders into alt.tv.survivor to brag
about their stock market performance?
Sorkin at least has some qualifications that would put him on the level of a
James Joyce...though not Truman Capote.
> I do not object to a person having flaws (addictions or whatever). I do
> object to a person dwelling on himself, especially when it is attempted
> art.
Most 'art' is about the 'self'.
ctopper
his host/monologue spot on Saturday Night Live to blast the network
after Taxi was cancelled?
Thomas Dzubin wrote:
> I've gotten pretty jaded by TV the last few years, but...
David
>Watching this episode rang a faint bell with me. Didn't Judd Hirsch use
>his host/monologue spot on Saturday Night Live to blast the network
>after Taxi was cancelled?
I think he did that at the Emmies after he won.
Cory
> I've gotten pretty jaded by TV the last few years, but...
> At the risk of sounding like I'm asto-turfing... holy crap... the first
> episode of Studio 60 was REALLY good.
I thought I was going to hate it. In fact, I was prepared for just
such a thing to happen. Well, it didn't... I LOVED it. Can't wait
for next week. Rebuilding a television network from the ground up is
an interesting premise.
> (for a second, I thought it WAS a West Wing / Friends crossover. Amanda
> Peet kinda looks like Courtney Cox. Good to see Timothy Busfield again
> too)
One other reason it looked a lot like a West Wing crossover is because
Studio 60 used the same typeface/font for its titles/credits/etc. that
TWW used.
--- Cory
Barry Margolin
alte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am a tad bit worried that Perry and Whitford will just play their
> respective characters from Friends and The West Wing, however.
While watching Perry in this, I never once was reminded of Chandler.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Barry Margolin
"bkl...@yahoo.com" <bkl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thomas Dzubin wrote:
> > (although the crack about Vancouver not being like anything was
> > pretty cruel...Vancouver = Boston California?)
>
> It just struck me a as bitterness as the bean counters of Hollywood
> want all the creatives to film in Canada and no doubt the creatives
> prefer to be in LA, near their homes, friends, family and the Ivy.
I don't think it's intended to be a dig against Vancouver as a city,
just the way it's used by Hollywood. Vancouver has become a perennial
stand-in for every major American city, especially in movies, yet it
doesn't really look much like Chicago, Manhattan, or LA.
Pat Farrell
> - I abandoned West Wing when Sorkin left. I wonder how long he'll be
> entertained by writing Studio 60 before he decamps?
Depends on how much cocaine they can get to him.
--
Pat
jayembee
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>> "Rhino" <no.offline.c...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I never saw Sports Night since I've never cared about sports
>>
>> What gave you the impression Sports Night was about sports?
>
> Maybe he got the impression because it was called "Sports night?"
>
> Just a shot in the dark.
Back in the early 70s, I was working in a public library at the
returns desk. One day, this old guy comes in, drops the book
he's returning on the desk and starts ranting at me about how
he assumed that it was about sports, and instead it was this
disgusting, foul-mouthed piece of garbage.
The book was Kurt Vonnegut's BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS.
-- jayembee
jayembee
> alte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I am a tad bit worried that Perry and Whitford will just play their
>> respective characters from Friends and The West Wing, however.
>
> While watching Perry in this, I never once was reminded of Chandler.
Perry was absolutely spot-on in this. He has a great sense for
balancing seriousness and humor. I'd say he was halfway between
Chandler and his brief recurring part on TWW.
On the other hand, Bradley Whitford was just as dull here as he
was on TWW. On the other other hand, it kinda sorta works here,
as I expect he's going to being playing straight man for Perry
a lot of the time.
-- jayembee
Dano
"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
news:u1e0h25uphvl3kpbb...@4ax.com...
didn't feel he was complaining at all through the character. Quite the
opposite. He seemed to be "owning" it quite well. I saw a man apologizing
to his friend and partner for fucking them both up, not blaming anyone else.
Elle
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote
To make a buck and to lament his poor poor history. Oh and
to appeal to the lowest common denominator as indicated
above.
David Johnston
wrote:
>> Funny how things are interpreted...usually due to one's
>> own agenda. I didn't feel he was complaining at all
>> through the character. Quite the opposite. He seemed to
>> be "owning" it quite well. I saw a man apologizing to his
>> friend and partner for fucking them both up, not blaming
>> anyone else.
>
>To make a buck
What the hell is so wrong about earning money for what you do?
Clell Harmon
> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote
>> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote
>>> "Elle" <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> its not a show for joe six pack. its for the west wing
>>>>> viewer.
>>>> Not a chance. The show is Sorkin's childish whine, "I
>>>> was so persecuted
>>>> for being an artist with a little addiction problem."
>>> Was it Sorkin's childish whine as you claim or was it
>>> Sorkin showing
>> people
>>> that addictions really can take away some opportunities?
>
> Unless one is goddamn James Joyce or maybe Truman Capote,
> self-absorption has never been fashionable, as art, luncheon
> conversation, or internet posts.
Which leads so many of us to wonder why you persist in posting....
>
>>> The character
>>> lost
>>> the ability to direct the movie he wanted to direct and
>>> had to settle for
>> a
>>> job he didn't particularly want...as well as having been
>>> exposed to scorn
>>> and such from his new peers/coworkers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> you have to be really stupid to get caught with coke in
>> your system by a
>> physical. it is out of your system in 3 days, 4 at most.
>> generally you know
>> when the check-up will be. coke isn't like heroin or
>> nicotine where you get
>> really nutty without it. the worst crackhead can go 3-4
>> days without any.
>
> I do not object to a person having flaws (addictions or
> whatever). I do object to a person dwelling on himself,
> especially when it is attempted art.
Your dwelling is most specifically not art.
>
>
Clell Harmon
David Johnston
wrote:
>> To make a buck and to lament his poor poor history. Oh and
>> to appeal to the lowest common denominator as indicated
>> above.
>>
>>
> If it appealed to you Elle, what are you bitching about?
Elle appears to be upset that Sorkin isn't trying to make a flop.
yks...@yahoo.com
Michael Johnson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 01:19:45 -0700, yks...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Michael Johnson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:48:13 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <IbqdnYwEYM0qwJLY...@comcast.com>,
> >> > "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ar Q" <Arthu...@hottmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:lHqPg.13627$xQ1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Oh I loved it. Fantastic cast (Probably one of the strongest casts on
> >> >> > > television), smart and funny writing. But, I loved the West Wing and
> >> >> > > Sports Night, so it's no surprise to me. I just hope NBC is patient
> >> >> > > and gives the show a chance to make it.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Anthony
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is no better than Sports Night. Let's see how much a fake TV studio
> >> >> > setting appeals to the average Joe.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> its not a show for joe six pack. its for the west wing viewer. its for
> >> >> liberal leaning types.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, I disagree. I loved it and I'm hardl a liberal leaner.
> >>
> >> Same. Both TWW and Sports Night are for people who admire good
> >> writing. Unfortunately.. there aren't a lot of those around!
> >>
> >> My parents were as religious conservative as they come and Wednesday
> >> night they'd never miss The West Wing. Sorkin has somehow mastered how
> >> to write liberal without pissing everyone off. He doesn't convert
> >> anybody.. his shows are just immensely watchable. Part of it I think
> >> is like JMS he usually presented the other side in his writing with
> >> some respect and without resorting to caricatures or stereotypes.
> >
> >some respect true but he didn't really write much from a conservative
> >point of view in TWW.
>
> Nah.. not really.. TWW was a show laden pretty well with liberal
> arguments. But there is a world of difference between that.. and
> writers who stack the deck towards the liberal cause to make their
> point. Any other writer and the christian would have just been the
> punchline to every joke. But watch when the drunk cast member goes off
> on her because of religion... she verbally TKO's him in about 5
> seconds flat. By having strong characters with conviction and an
> ability to argue their point, even when his own politics don't agree
> with them, it puts Sorkin head and shoulders above other writers and
> tends to make the show watchable by more then just the liberal
> minority.
>
> >He is just masterful at making liberal sound good and at telling a wonderful
> >story. I loved almost every episode of TWW.
>
> I still don't buy it. What sets him apart isn't making liberal sound
> good but that is he is very capable of arguing the other side as part
> of the argument. Would A Few Good Men have been nearly as effective if
> the Colonel was just a pushover?
>
> Ainsley Hayes was another strong conservative character who could
> argue her side.
Agreed but she had what... maybe 3 strong episodes, then poof! He can
write liberal vs conservative just fine but most of TWW was liberal
unoposed. He wrote it great
>
> Heck.. part of the funny in TWW was that Rob Lowe was a master
> debater.. until of course he came up against strong women and then
> they used him for a rag doll. Its more about strong personalities and
> the clash of arguments between them then trying to promote a cause
> which is why Sorkin's writing works.
I can agree with that also but most of those strong women characters
were not conservative, they just argued different sections of the same
side of the coin in TWW. Sorkin's writing is just the tops... he could
probably make a show about the Kremlin and make communism sound good.
Anim8rFSK
yks...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've always wondered what happened with her there. I wonder if the
problem was, shw was smart, right, and stood for the opposite of
everything he believed.
David M. Nieporent
>>> Funny how things are interpreted...usually due to one's
>>> own agenda. I didn't feel he was complaining at all
>>> through the character. Quite the opposite. He seemed to
>>> be "owning" it quite well. I saw a man apologizing to his
>>> friend and partner for fucking them both up, not blaming
>>> anyone else.
>> To make a buck and to lament his poor poor history. Oh and
>> to appeal to the lowest common denominator as indicated
>> above.
> If it appealed to you Elle, what are you bitching about?
Caroline is lowest, but not common.
Elle
snip
Told your wife how you've been outed yet? How about Ron?
You're not over that nervous breakdown yet, big boy.
Obveeus
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
> Back in the early 70s, I was working in a public library at the
> returns desk. One day, this old guy comes in, drops the book
> he's returning on the desk and starts ranting at me about how
> he assumed that it was about sports, and instead it was this
> disgusting, foul-mouthed piece of garbage.
>
> The book was Kurt Vonnegut's BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS.
The guy was a moron. Now, if he had expected it to be a cookbook...or a
book about cereal, well then, he would have had a valid point.
Obveeus
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> While watching Perry in this, I never once was reminded of Chandler.
The character didn't remind me of Chandler, but it did remind me of Perry.
It sure seemed like they were drawing from some of his personal problems.
Cory
And I was never once reminded by Whitford of Josh. Not one time...
Josh was too stright-laced a character to lose out on being bonded for
a movie by doing Coke... much less lose anything else (like an
election) by inadvertandly touching off a scandal, IMHO... but I
digress. That's fodder that's more appropriate for
alt.tv.the-west-wing, I think.
--- Cory
William December Starr
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> said:
> Back in the early 70s, I was working in a public library at the
> returns desk. One day, this old guy comes in, drops the book he's
> returning on the desk and starts ranting at me about how he
> assumed that it was about sports, and instead it was this
> disgusting, foul-mouthed piece of garbage.
>
> The book was Kurt Vonnegut's BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS.
Hey, *any* reason to reject Vonnegut is a good one...
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Barry Margolin
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
I wonder what a book called "To Serve Man" would be about. :)
William December Starr
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> said:
>>> The book was Kurt Vonnegut's BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS.
>>
>> The guy was a moron. Now, if he had expected it to be a
>> cookbook...or a book about cereal, well then, he would have had a
>> valid point.
>
> I wonder what a book called "To Serve Man" would be about. :)
"It's a TENNIS MANUAL!!!!"
Barry Margolin
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
Yeah, they obviously patterned the character after him -- what's the
chance of finding a Hollywood star with a drug problem?
ray o'hara
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eeq804$g9t$1...@panix3.panix.com...
vonnegut is great. all his books are brilliant. i realize they have no
pictures for you to color but they are for grown-ups.
ray o'hara
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-7E4CC2....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
belmot fucked up when they didn't let the mormons build what they wanted on
arlmont next to rte 2.. it would have been a world renowned land mark
the one in maryland near dc is spectacular. like a great european
cathedral, goddam nimbys ruin everything.
what they allowed to be built doesn't make it
ray o'hara
"Cory" <ony...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158716875....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
they should have hired janel maloney and cast her as his slutty assistant.
Anim8rFSK
Anim8rFSK
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <eeq6f5$p44$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > While watching Perry in this, I never once was reminded of Chandler.
> >
> > The character didn't remind me of Chandler, but it did remind me of Perry.
> > It sure seemed like they were drawing from some of his personal problems.
>
> Yeah, they obviously patterned the character after him -- what's the
> chance of finding a Hollywood star with a drug problem?
Isn't Josh the one with the drug problem?
Anim8rFSK
You have read Niven's INFERNO?
Barry Margolin
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
I couldn't remember, so I assumed this was what Obveeus was referring
to. So what were Perry's personal problems that were reflected in the
character?
Speaking of confusion among characters, I find it bothersome Whitford's
character is named Danny, because Timothy Busfield is a regular and I
still associate that name with him from TWW.
Garondo...@yahoo.com
Oh, William, tssk tssk...