Is anyone still watching Studio 60?
Callen Molenda
When it came on last night I was too tired to watch, and realized that I
didn't care enough to record it. Oh well.
Callen in VA
chicagofan
outside the studio... and hooray there was no comedy skit! :)
bj
jem33
But there was a *rehearsal* of a comedy skit, and Again, it Wasn't
Funny!!
I did enjoy the show (part 1 of 2) with its zany unusual plot. John
Goodman was fantastic as a redneck-acting judge who enjoys messing with
the minds of all the Hollywood types who've managed to congregate in
his Nevada domain. Again, as with Christine Lahti, the guest actor was
Much more compelling than any of the regular cast. I'm looking forward
to part 2.
SoHillsGuy
jem33 wrote:
> But there was a *rehearsal* of a comedy skit, and Again, it Wasn't
> Funny!!
Which even the characters admitted...
Obveeus
"chicagofan" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> I am, and thought it was a pretty amusing show overall. Most of it was
> outside the studio... and hooray there was no comedy skit! :)
I thought it was a really good episode, though the extradition bit didn't
really make any sense. Most places wouldn't extradite someone for
'speeding'. If it was some sort of felony violationg (due to the extreme
level of the speeding), wouldn't they need some sort of court proceeding to
do the extradition? No one in Nevada was working, so we are left to assume
that a dink town deputy sheriff forked over the department funds for the
extradition?
I do hope we get to find out the 'secret reason' for the speeding,
though...and I kinda hope they have to do a show without two of the on air
stars.
Anim8rFSK
"Callen Molenda" <callen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Too bad. It was pretty good. Almost zero Harriet.
--
Killfile Troy Heagy in all his many incarnations now:
Troy....@gmail.com,video...@yahoo.com
videono...@yahoo.com,telen...@yahoo.com
Anim8rFSK
"jem33" <jem33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> chicagofan wrote:
> > Callen Molenda wrote:
> > > I'm not.
> > >
> > > When it came on last night I was too tired to watch, and realized that I
> > > didn't care enough to record it. Oh well.
> > >
> > > Callen in VA
> > >
> > >
> > I am, and thought it was a pretty amusing show overall. Most of it was
> > outside the studio... and hooray there was no comedy skit! :)
> > bj
>
>
> But there was a *rehearsal* of a comedy skit, and Again, it Wasn't
> Funny!!
But -- they at least admitted it wasn't funny. Josh was gonna cut it.
>
> I did enjoy the show (part 1 of 2) with its zany unusual plot. John
> Goodman was fantastic as a redneck-acting judge who enjoys messing with
> the minds of all the Hollywood types who've managed to congregate in
> his Nevada domain. Again, as with Christine Lahti, the guest actor was
> Much more compelling than any of the regular cast. I'm looking forward
> to part 2.
--
Agent Smith
news:ANIM8Rfsk-C0D5A...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
> In article <1162930898.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "jem33" <jem33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> chicagofan wrote:
>> > Callen Molenda wrote:
>> > > I'm not.
>> > >
>> > > When it came on last night I was too tired to watch, and realized
>> > > that I didn't care enough to record it. Oh well.
>> > >
>> > > Callen in VA
>> > >
>> > >
>> > I am, and thought it was a pretty amusing show overall. Most of
>> > it was outside the studio... and hooray there was no comedy skit!
>> > :) bj
>>
>>
>> But there was a *rehearsal* of a comedy skit, and Again, it Wasn't
>> Funny!!
>
> But -- they at least admitted it wasn't funny. Josh was gonna cut it.
Just like the *real* SNL, where nothing is funny any more. They get one
idea for a joke and then do the same thing eleven times in a three
minute sketch.
Kenneth Crudup
"Callen Molenda" <callen...@yahoo.com> says:
>When it came on last night I was too tired to watch, and realized that I
>didn't care enough to record it. Oh well.
Unfortunate, as I thought last night's was *easily* the best of the
series so far, and can't wait for Part 2 next week.
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898
record hunter
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>I am, and thought it was a pretty amusing show overall. Most of it was
>outside the studio... and hooray there was no comedy skit! :)
Yes, there was... the "Jesus as 'Network Standards" guy" skit. It
wasn't funny, but the plot of the show indicated it wasn't supposed to
be.
Brian
Brian Thorn
<callen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not.
>
>When it came on last night I was too tired to watch, and realized that I
>didn't care enough to record it. Oh well.
Yep, another good episode.
Brian
Newport
jem33...@yahoo.com (jem33)
any of the regular cast.
Yep, the cast is a big part of the problem.
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
Daniel Damouth
news:eiqn1b$j5a$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU:
> I'm not.
>
> When it came on last night I was too tired to watch, and realized
> that I didn't care enough to record it. Oh well.
I think it was the most enjoyable episode since the pilot.
-Dan Damouth
jayembee
> It was pretty good. Almost zero Harriet.
Those two sentenances are contradictory.
-- jayembee
Obveeus
She seemed to be on screen in this episode for just as much as she has been
in the other episodes.
jayembee
> I think it was the most enjoyable episode since the pilot.
Same here. I also couldn't help but notice that Perry and Whitford
each appears to work much better playing against the other than
on his own.
Given the way Danny manipulated Matt so handily into coming up with
the Jesus sketch, I'm thinking that he was using reverse psychology
on Jack Rudolph with regard to keeping it in.
-- jayembee
Anim8rFSK
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
Nah. Less Harriet = good.
jayembee
> jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > It was pretty good. Almost zero Harriet.
>>
>> Those two sentenances are contradictory.
"Sentenances"??? God, what a maroon.
> Nah. Less Harriet = good.
I was partially yanking your chain, but partially not. I like both
Sarah Paulson, the actress, and Harriet Hayes, the character.
-- jayembee
David B
No, I quit watching it half way through the second episode.
Andrew Ryan Chang
I would consider them redundant (the character is one-note and the
actress really doesn't convince me that the character is remotely skilled at
comedy), though I actually didn't like the episode anyways.
--
"_Lord Dimwit Flathead the Excessive_: Dimwit despised the outdoors, and
he was petrified of rain, which puddled embarrasingly on his level pate."
-Encyclopedia Frobozzica.
Anim8rFSK
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
About her only contribution was to say how funny the Jesus sketch was
(at the diner) when, in fact, it wasn't.
Jeffy3
I'm done as of halfway through Monday night's episode. I realized I
don't care about any of the characters and I am tired of being lectured
to by Sorkin. It worked well in the context of TWW, but it doesn't
work for me here. Behind the scenes at a late night comedy show would
be a good premise for a series (in the vein of LARRY SANDERS) but it
doesn't work for me here.
jayembee
> About her only contribution was to say how funny the Jesus
> sketch was (at the diner) when, in fact, it wasn't.
Well, that, and her two fairly lengthy scenes with Matt, the first when
they talk about her response on the gay marriage issue in the gossip
column, and the second when they talk about the situation that Tom the
the others are in. And, of course, the fairly lengthy scene with her
and Tom and the "gay houligans".
But other than those substantial scenes, yeah, she was hardly in it.
-- jayembee
Vocalize
Sure am. And Monday night's was the best one yet.
It's a rare show that is born fully-realized. This one is definitely finding
itself.
Anim8rFSK
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
And they were the boring parts of the show.
karl
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hb42l2pja26il4dnk...@4ax.com...
Really how many skits have their been? Other than the pastiche scenes,
which I don't count, there has been the G&S cold open and the plagiarism
news segment. Granted both were badly conceived and poorly executed but I
don't think the same consideration is fair for the Jesus Skit, the CNN Cell
Phone Crisis or other bits they show IN DEVELOPMENT. They aren't supposed to
be polished finished products but a glimpse of the evolution and back-story
of the skit. And as such Jesus, Cell Phone et al are fine and fit in well. I
expect to see the rough edges in those bits bits.
IMO.
record hunter
Yep. Another excellent issue of STUDIO 60.
Donna B
<1163041359.6...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "record hunter"
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
A leaps & bounds thing, debuted to great potential but lots of questions,
and it's growing like crazy, fast, too.
--
Donna B : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
Noydb222
wrote:
>
>
>Sure am. And Monday night's was the best one yet.
>
>It's a rare show that is born fully-realized. This one is definitely finding
>itself.
Agreed. That was the best episode yet. Parts of it were just about
unbearably good. Especially John Goodman.
I can't wait for next week.
But the show still sometimes suffers from some unrealistic exchanges
of dialogue. In the real world, people don't deliver clever 37 word
sentences that are instantly followed by clever 38 word retorts.
Note to the writers: Sometimes less is more.
And only one monologue speaker per hour, or scene, or conversation.
Andrew Ryan Chang
> Really how many skits have their been? Other than the pastiche scenes,
>which I don't count, there has been the G&S cold open and the plagiarism
>news segment. Granted both were badly conceived and poorly executed but I
>don't think the same consideration is fair for the Jesus Skit, the CNN Cell
>Phone Crisis or other bits they show IN DEVELOPMENT. They aren't supposed to
>be polished finished products but a glimpse of the evolution and back-story
>of the skit.
Cell Phone was nearly done. They were running a pretty late
rehearsal and working out technical details of the show to air; just how
much improvement could they have made in the very limited time left?
--
This isn't life! This is just stuff! And it's become more important to
you than living!
-- Lester Burnham, AMERICAN BEAUTY (1999)
Anim8rFSK
arc...@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote:
> In article <eitots$s8k$1...@news.datemas.de>, karl <kona...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Really how many skits have their been? Other than the pastiche scenes,
> >which I don't count, there has been the G&S cold open and the plagiarism
> >news segment. Granted both were badly conceived and poorly executed but I
> >don't think the same consideration is fair for the Jesus Skit, the CNN Cell
> >Phone Crisis or other bits they show IN DEVELOPMENT. They aren't supposed to
> >be polished finished products but a glimpse of the evolution and back-story
> >of the skit.
>
> Cell Phone was nearly done. They were running a pretty late
> rehearsal and working out technical details of the show to air; just how
> much improvement could they have made in the very limited time left?
from what we've seen of the on-air sketches, not NEARLY enough. :)
karl
"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:eiv14n$alb$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> In article <eitots$s8k$1...@news.datemas.de>, karl <kona...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Really how many skits have their been? Other than the pastiche scenes,
>>which I don't count, there has been the G&S cold open and the plagiarism
>>news segment. Granted both were badly conceived and poorly executed but I
>>don't think the same consideration is fair for the Jesus Skit, the CNN
>>Cell
>>Phone Crisis or other bits they show IN DEVELOPMENT. They aren't supposed
>>to
>>be polished finished products but a glimpse of the evolution and
>>back-story
>>of the skit.
>
> Cell Phone was nearly done. They were running a pretty late
> rehearsal and working out technical details of the show to air; just how
> much improvement could they have made in the very limited time left?
I thought it was ok for what it was and showing it obscured through the
hectic rehearsal distractions worked as well - at least for me - YMMV.
chicagofan
> "Brian Thorn" <btho...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, chicagofan <m...@privacy.net>
>>> outside the studio... and hooray there was no comedy skit! :)
>>
>> Yes, there was... the "Jesus as 'Network Standards" guy" skit. It
>> wasn't funny, but the plot of the show indicated it wasn't supposed to be.
>
> Really how many skits have their been? Other than the pastiche scenes,
> which I don't count, there has been the G&S cold open and the plagiarism
> news segment. Granted both were badly conceived and poorly executed but I
> don't think the same consideration is fair for the Jesus Skit, the CNN Cell
> Phone Crisis or other bits they show IN DEVELOPMENT. They aren't supposed to
> be polished finished products but a glimpse of the evolution and back-story
> of the skit. And as such Jesus, Cell Phone et al are fine and fit in well. I
> expect to see the rough edges in those bits bits.
>
> IMO.
Thank you! That is exactly how I saw it as well. :) Practice doesn't
count... [I know, it's called rehearsal]. ;)
bj
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>Note to the writers: Sometimes less is more.
>And only one monologue speaker per hour, or scene, or conversation.
Did you forget that Aaron Sorkin runs this show? 8^p
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
Noydb222
wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 06:32:03 GMT, Noydb222 <Noyd...@fakeaddy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Note to the writers: Sometimes less is more.
>>And only one monologue speaker per hour, or scene, or conversation.
>
>Did you forget that Aaron Sorkin runs this show? 8^p
>
> -- Rob
Yeah, what was I expecting ? ...
But for me, that sort of dialogue usually worked out fine on West
Wing... Heck, I know people who actually talk like that. But they
usually don't come in pairs,
I thought they might tone down this style a bit for this show.
I was wrong.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
Thing is, this is a first-season show. Anyone expecting it to be
fully polished from day one was expecting too much, IMO, as most shows
not named Alias hit the ground walking rather than running.
And personally, I'd rather have a show that's a little rough around
the edges (Bones) and finding its voice over the course of the first
year or two (The X-Files) than a show that hits a home run right off.
The ones that hit a home run right off almost always either burn out
immediately (ala The Nine) or quickly lose their way (Desperate
Housewives is more typical and, increasingly, Lost is headed in that
direction). Heck, Gilmore Girls didn't really hit its stride until
about 3/4s of the way through its first season, having to intersperse
*several* clunkers (including Kill Me Now, Emily In Wonderland and, of
course, the slow-as-molasses Pilot) between the classics (Rory's
Birthday Parties, Rory's Dance, Christopher Returns).
Newport
Noyd...@fakeaddy.com (Noydb222)
know people who actually talk like that. But they usually don't come in
pairs, I thought they might tone down this style a bit for this show. I
was wrong.
It does seem more of a tiresome cliche on this show.
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
Anne
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gktfl2dfpmv3l38hi...@4ax.com...
I like Studio 60, and I usually love Sorkin's work (especially Sports Night,
where he could make you laugh and cry all in the space of a 22 minute
show.). But the dialog in Studio 60, and the sense of importance and
gravitas is more appropriate to the West Wing, than it is to the topic of a
sketch comedy show. Also, we don't see much in the way of actual skits, and
the ones we have seen aren't funny.
Last week's episode at the police station reminded me a great deal of the
West Wing episode in the police station when they had to bail out the
Supreme Court nominee (Mendoza ?)...
Cory
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:06:06 GMT, Noydb222 <Noyd...@fakeaddy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:30:07 -0600, Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 06:32:03 GMT, Noydb222 <Noyd...@fakeaddy.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Note to the writers: Sometimes less is more.
> >>>And only one monologue speaker per hour, or scene, or conversation.
> >>
> >>Did you forget that Aaron Sorkin runs this show? 8^p
> >>
> >> -- Rob
> >
> >
> >Yeah, what was I expecting ? ...
> >
> >But for me, that sort of dialogue usually worked out fine on West
> >Wing... Heck, I know people who actually talk like that. But they
> >usually don't come in pairs,
> >I thought they might tone down this style a bit for this show.
> >I was wrong.
>
> Thing is, this is a first-season show. Anyone expecting it to be
> fully polished from day one was expecting too much, IMO, as most shows
> not named Alias hit the ground walking rather than running.
IMHO, TWW DID hit the ground running. Sure, it had clunkers along the
way... all shows do, of course, but the first episode set the frickin'
tone for the show flawlessly, and I think it's one of the best series
premieres I've ever seen... and that's sayin' a LOT.
My point is that I KNOW Aaron Sorkin can produce better quality work
than that of S60, because I've seen it with my own two eyes. Having
said that, it IS just the first season, and with the cast he's
assembled, I think it CAN get better if the scripts get better. Right
now, I'm kinda bored with the show, but that's not because of the
on-screen talent. THAT'S fine.
--- Cory
Newport
ony...@yahoo.com (Cory)
S60. Right now, I'm kinda bored with the show, but that's not because of
the on-screen talent.
-----------------------------------------
They certainly contribute to the boredom.
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
Barnabas Collins
Rumor has it it's been picked up for a full season, God knows why
I found it as interesting as watching paint dry.
>immediately (ala The Nine) or quickly lose their way (Desperate
>Housewives is more typical and, increasingly, Lost is headed in that
>direction).
IMHO Desperate Housewives lost it's way
five seconds inot the first episode.
I never got that show.
I found it painful to watch.
>Heck, Gilmore Girls didn't really hit its stride until
>about 3/4s of the way through its first season, having to intersperse
>*several* clunkers (including Kill Me Now, Emily In Wonderland and, of
>course, the slow-as-molasses Pilot) between the classics (Rory's
>Birthday Parties, Rory's Dance, Christopher Returns).
I have to disagree. GG hit the ground running and never really
slowed down.
As I always say even the worst episode of GG is better thant the best
episode of a lot of other junk on TV.
>
> -- Rob
~consul
>> I was wrong.
> Thing is, this is a first-season show. Anyone expecting it to be
> fully polished from day one was expecting too much, IMO, as most shows
> not named Alias hit the ground walking rather than running.
Given how this is the writers 4th foray into this style, and the reuse of folks who are
used to his style, I would have felt that he would have had a firm grip as to how it
should be.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Cory
> >Re: Is anyone still watching Studio 60?
> Rumor has it it's been picked up for a full season,
Apparently, it has been. I was watching Access Hollywood or some show
like that, and here, AH (or whatever it was) runs a day behind, so
Friday's show was on here, and they announced that S60 had indeed been
given a script order for a full season.
--- Cory
Rob Jensen
<con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:
>Rob Jensen wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:06:06 GMT, Noydb222 <Noyd...@fakeaddy.com>
>>> I thought they might tone down this style a bit for this show.
>>> I was wrong.
>> Thing is, this is a first-season show. Anyone expecting it to be
>> fully polished from day one was expecting too much, IMO, as most shows
>> not named Alias hit the ground walking rather than running.
>
>Given how this is the writers 4th foray into this style, and the reuse of folks who are
>used to his style, I would have felt that he would have had a firm grip as to how it
>should be.
Each project is its own project, it succeeds or fails on its own
merits, as the many successes and failures of, for instance, David E.
Kelley
Cory
> ony...@yahoo.com (Cory)
> TWW DID hit the ground running. Sure, it had clunkers along the way...
> all shows do. Aaron Sorkin can produce better quality work than that of
> S60. Right now, I'm kinda bored with the show, but that's not because of
> the on-screen talent.
> -----------------------------------------
> They certainly contribute to the boredom.
"'Studio 60' doesn't take comedy seriously
Show's flailing by focusing on issues, not craziness of the writers'
room"
Benji
"Anne" <AnneW...@tpsrept.edu> wrote in message
news:wsU5h.1280$Jd3.624@trnddc07...
|
>
> I like Studio 60, and I usually love Sorkin's work (especially Sports
> Night,
> where he could make you laugh and cry all in the space of a 22 minute
> show.). But the dialog in Studio 60, and the sense of importance and
> gravitas is more appropriate to the West Wing, than it is to the topic of
> a
> sketch comedy show. Also, we don't see much in the way of actual skits,
> and
> the ones we have seen aren't funny.
So why do you like this show then? I think it's by far the worst of the new
shows that I've sampled this year.
Benji
Anim8rFSK
"Benji" <benjam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anne" <AnneW...@tpsrept.edu> wrote in message
> news:wsU5h.1280$Jd3.624@trnddc07...
> |
> >
> > I like Studio 60, and I usually love Sorkin's work (especially Sports
> > Night,
> > where he could make you laugh and cry all in the space of a 22 minute
> > show.). But the dialog in Studio 60, and the sense of importance and
> > gravitas is more appropriate to the West Wing, than it is to the topic of
> > a
> > sketch comedy show. Also, we don't see much in the way of actual skits,
> > and
> > the ones we have seen aren't funny.
>
> So why do you like this show then? I think it's by far the worst of the new
> shows that I've sampled this year.
>
It has major problems, but it's the best show of the season -- at least
until tonight and SHOW ME THE MONEY!
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <v-OdnZydaIydycfY...@comcast.com>,
> "Benji" <benjam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Anne" <AnneW...@tpsrept.edu> wrote in message
>> news:wsU5h.1280$Jd3.624@trnddc07...
>> |
>> >
>> > I like Studio 60, and I usually love Sorkin's work (especially Sports
>> > Night,
>> > where he could make you laugh and cry all in the space of a 22 minute
>> > show.). But the dialog in Studio 60, and the sense of importance and
>> > gravitas is more appropriate to the West Wing, than it is to the topic of
>> > a
>> > sketch comedy show. Also, we don't see much in the way of actual skits,
>> > and
>> > the ones we have seen aren't funny.
>>
>> So why do you like this show then? I think it's by far the worst of the new
>> shows that I've sampled this year.
>>
>It has major problems, but it's the best show of the season -- at least
>until tonight and SHOW ME THE MONEY!
When you hear "Cheeses of Nazareth" you'll laaaaugh and laaaaaugh.
Obveeus
"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:44:44 -0700, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>It has major problems, but it's the best show of the season -- at least
>>until tonight and SHOW ME THE MONEY!
>
> When you hear "Cheeses of Nazareth" you'll laaaaugh and laaaaaugh.
William Shatner certainly qualifies as the cheesiest actor on TV.
Newport
ANIM...@cox.net (Anim8rFSK)
It has major problems
-----------------------------------------
Like every new show this season except 30 ROCK.
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
Anne
"Benji" <benjam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v-OdnZydaIydycfY...@comcast.com...
|
| "Anne" <AnneW...@tpsrept.edu> wrote in message
| news:wsU5h.1280$Jd3.624@trnddc07...
||
| >
| > I like Studio 60, and I usually love Sorkin's work (especially Sports
| > Night,
| > where he could make you laugh and cry all in the space of a 22 minute
| > show.). But the dialog in Studio 60, and the sense of importance and
| > gravitas is more appropriate to the West Wing, than it is to the topic
of
| > a
| > sketch comedy show. Also, we don't see much in the way of actual skits,
| > and
| > the ones we have seen aren't funny.
|
| So why do you like this show then? I think it's by far the worst of the
new
| shows that I've sampled this year.
I watch mostly out of hope, given Sorkin's track record.
Cory
> "Benji" <benjam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v-OdnZydaIydycfY...@comcast.com...
> | So why do you like this show then? I think it's by far the worst of the
> | new shows that I've sampled this year.
>
> I watch mostly out of hope, given Sorkin's track record.
While I love Matthew Perry, I have to admit that I watch for Brad
Whitford. I almost wish TWW would've spun off into a series that
followed the life of the Chief of Staff (who would have been Whitford,
because he was shown in the last scene of TWW as Santos' COS), with
little or no mention/following of the POTUS (so Smits wouldn't have had
to make a major commitment if he didn't want to). I think they
could've made it work, IMHO. Whitford's too good an actor to play
second banana his whole life (I'm not trying to imply that that's what
he's doing now on S60, FTR).
--- Cory
Newport
ony...@yahoo.com (Cory)
None of the actors on this show is a first banana like Sheen or Janney.
That's one of its biggest problems.
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
Vocalize
Apparently there's a huge contingent of people who steadfastly watch every
episode of Studio 60- - for the express purpose of complaining about it.
Just go to televisionwithoutpity.com. They hated it last week. They hated it
this week. And they fully expect to hate it when they tune in next week.
On the other hand, I still watch because I thoroughly enjoy it - - as
opposed to the shows I don't watch because I don't like them.
Yeah . . I'm a rebel.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>
>ony...@yahoo.com (Cory)
>too good an actor to play second banana
>-------------------------------------
>None of the actors on this show is a first banana like Sheen or Janney.
>That's one of its biggest problems.
I disagree. Perry, Whitford, Paulson and even Peet are definitely
"first bananas." The problem is that they haven't fully fleshed out
the show-within-the-show aspect yet. That's not to say that I think
the sketches need to be funny (SNL's aren't. Why should S60's be?) I
think that the *second* bananas need to be more fleshed out -- Corddry
and Hughely have already gotten their moments, but the rest of the
cast/crew of Friday Night in Hollywood or Studio 60 or whatever
they're calling the show-within-the-show need to be more fleshed out.
Where's the Donna, where's the Margaret? Where's the Charlie? At
least they've got Weber assaying the Hoynes-ish role and Timothy
Busfield really feels like a Mrs. Landingham for some reason among the
recurring characters, but the rest of the secondary cast is where TWW
excelled, and S60 don't have that yet. When it figures out that the
internal politics of the show itself are more interesting than the
internal politics between the show and the network, we'll see those
secondary characters a lot more and it'll click. It's a really simple
fix -- shift the focus of the series to putting on the show.
And finding something for Bradley Whitford to do besides look
befuddled. Like, is it time for his Danny to relapse into his drug
addiction yet?
Newport
Shut...@aol.com (Rob Jensen)
Janney. That's one of its biggest problems.>>>
Where's the Donna, where's the Margaret? Where's the Charlie? When it
figures out that the internal politics of the show itself are more
interesting than the internal politics between the show and the network
You have more patience than I with it.
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
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>
>Shut...@aol.com (Rob Jensen)
><<<None of the actors on this show is a first banana like Sheen or
>Janney. That's one of its biggest problems.>>>
>------------------------------------------
>Where's the Donna, where's the Margaret? Where's the Charlie? When it
>figures out that the internal politics of the show itself are more
>interesting than the internal politics between the show and the network
>------------------------------------------
>You have more patience than I with it.
IMO the typical first-year shows (that isn't a hit right off the bat
like Heroes or Grey's) deserve far more patience than they get.
Cory
<snip...>
> IMO the typical first-year shows (that isn't a hit right off the bat
> like Heroes or Grey's) deserve far more patience than they get.
>
> -- Rob
I'm stunned that HEROES is turning out to be as popular as it is. The
only reason I'm watching it is for the eye candy (e.g. Hayden P.,
Claire the cheerleader <grin>). Otherwise, I think it's nothing but a
hokey telecomic book.
--- Cory
Newport
ony...@yahoo.com (Cory)
Me, too.
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
record hunter
Of course it's popular. I have absolutely no interest in it. My only
new show that has succeeded is BETTY, and I'd give that up for
KIDNAPPED like that.
Newport
record...@gmail.com (record hunter)
I like her and her family. Don't care about her co-workers. I like 30
Jamie Brinkoeter
"Newport" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17168-456...@storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net...
record...@gmail.com (record hunter)
My only new show that has succeeded is BETTY
------------------------------------
I like her and her family. Don't care about her co-workers. I like 30
ROCK.
Mine are Jericho, Brothers & Sisters, and Men in Trees. At least I think
they're all succeeding so far.
Cory
I know for a fact that JERICHO's been picked up for a full-season run.
Granted, that doesn't mean anything about NEXT season, but at least
it's made it this far.
--- Cory