Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

NBC (ended 2007)





Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip Fan Reviews (239)

Write A Review
out of 10
4,829 votes
  • Totally uninteresting for none americans

    This show may be great for people who have heard of the famouse studio 60, but, except for americans, the Studio 60 is completely unknown for the rest of the world.
    This show could only work in the US, and, broadcasting it only in the US might be only 50% of the money they are suppose to make on such an expansive show.
    I really think this show might be difficult to appreciate fonr none americans, I know I didn't. I wouldn't say the plot is bad but in my case, I was kind of bored since I didn't know what studio 60 was
  • I dont think I want to stay home on Mondays....

    I might be bitter because I miss my Medium.. But I wont give this show 5 minutes to win me over. I miss Medium, Medium is an excellent show. Ir didnt struggle in the ratings like Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Thats why they put it in the slot. I love Matthew Perry, when he was on friends, I dont know where Amanda Peet falls in the show, but she doesnt have ANY talent. Im sorry not even a little. Bring back Medium!!!! Cancel this Waste of Time Tv SHow. Or change it to Fridays.. Maybe will watch then
  • Worst show ever!

    This is absolutely the worst show I have ever seen! It was a complete waste of time to watch. I do not see how this show made it to air. Hopefully it will be cancelled soon so they can put something worthwhile on in it's place.

    Here are a few suggestions of other things more worthwhile to watch:

    An hour of nothing but commercials.
    A pot of water boiling.
    Grass growing.
    The laundry at either home or a laundromat.
    The clouds go by overhead.
    The back of your eyelids.
    Cars driving by on the freeway, while standing ON the freeway!

    Do yourself a favor and watch anything else. You'll be better off for doing so.

    The only reason I rated it a 1.0 was because it wouldn't let me rate it with anything less.
  • Left Wing Propoganda

    Can we just have an entertainment product from Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey that is not an advertisement for the Democratic Party?

    Isn't Alec Baldwin supposed to live in Canada now? Alec can you at least suck in your gut when you are on camera for cripes sakes. What happened to you? You used to be a heart throb?

    The show has a glimmer of hope and it is called Tracy Morgan! More Tracy Morgan less white people! "Now why don't you drop out of that space suit and show my that phat a--!"
  • It's about Saturday Night Live but funnier. This show is not funny.

    Well we made it through 1 and a half episode before we changed the channel. It’s nice to see chandler, but this show is boring, SNL boring. SNL is been boring and real bad for the last 8 years why did they think that they could make a behind the scenes about it. The only thing that can save this show is if they make it funnier and add a few skits to the show.
  • Aaron Sorkin who created \\\"The American President\\\" and \\\"The West Wing\\\" now creates another hopeful knockout called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip that rings definite familiarity to his previous creations in almost every way.

    Egads! I was definately hoping for original but received a hefty helping of leftovers from the West Wing and The American President. The reporter is reminiscent of C.J. Craig and the carry overs from the West Wing pretty much play the characters they performed on that show. The content is also somewhat embarresing as the jokes written for the \\\"Saturday night Live\\\" esk parody leave me with \\\"huh?\\\" and the attempts to get at my heartstrings made me wish that they did a couple more seasons of \\\"The West Wing.\\\" I give this show a total thumbs down.
  • Sorkin's second try at "Sports Night"

    Long ago and far away, Aaron Sorkin wrote a show called "Sports Night" -- a look behind the scenes at a ESPN-Sportscenter-like show at an ESPN-like network. It had snappy dialog, and interesting characters. Then the preaching started. Fairly early on, the show developed a habit of stoping dead in mid-show while one character or another would intone some political message or other as if it was Plain Obvious Truth to All Right-Thinking People (just like that, with capital letters). In short order, it was plain that the snappy dialog and story were just window dressing for the speech. The show died a premature death, in part, I suspect, because the Right-Thinking People wouldn't watch a show with the word "Sports" in the Title. So Sorkin learned his lesson. Make up a political show (quickly nicknamed "The Left Wing" for its political bent), where the central character could make 'brave' (it said so right there in the script) pronouncements about politics of the day, slag people Sorkin didn't like, and fawn over people he did. Since Right-Thinking People would watch such a show, and indulge their fantasies about how RTP should rule the world, but still be able to live soap-opera lives, the show prospered. And the speeches? Well, here they even fit! Heck, Sorkin's JFK fantasies could even be fulfilled - Martin Sheen as the pres? Saying whatever Sorkin wanted? He shoulda been paying the networks, not the other way around. Well, anyway, apparently Sorkin wants another crack at proving he was right about Sports Night. '60', a SNL-like show at an NBC-like network again allows him to use the show-within-a-show live TV show to lend urgency to his soap opera -- every show has a built-in story with a built-in climax. But since the show is "politically aware", he gets to cast his speeches in a political context. He can slag his great satan, President Bush, in the guise of joke-writing. Elitism (or, as one character pompously puts it in the pilot, having 'credentials') can be praised, the great lumpenproletariat held up for ridicule. It's a Sorkin show, for sure. A right-thinking show for the lumpenelitists (like that, huh? I went to college). C'mon Mr. Sorkin, you're a fine writer, but writing shows like this will not change the world, regardless of what your support system might be telling you. Not even Serling could use TV dramas to change the world.
  • Conceptually flawed, substantively juvenile and just DOA

    This show is hokey, unrealistic and makes me feel embarrassed to watch. I took the hype, TiVo\\\'d it, thought the first weeks episode was overly dramatic, conceptually flawed, substantively juvenile and just DOA. But I gave it a second chance this week, and my ears were almost burning as I was almost embarrassed to be watching this, even in the confines of my own private home, by myself. Whose ever heard a studio president press conference, let alone cared about a shows writer and director? This show is cliche, ridiculous and has been subsequently removed from my tiVo Season Pass. If you want to see what fun Hollywood life is all about, seek out Entourage!
  • If you like train wrecks, Studio 60 is the show for you.

    Aaron Sorkin has managed to turn a promising premise and a talented cast into be frank, what is a pile of dogs droppings. Where can I start?

    The show, which is about a 'sketch' show, has one problem. None of the sketches are even funny. We're talking about sketches worse than those on The 1/2 Hour News hour. The show is full of sexism, and intolerance of Christians. There are few likable characters.

    The plots are boring, and the subplots are even worse. The show comes across as being more pompous and self-righteous and self-congratulatory than an episode of The O'Reilly Factor. Ugh.
  • Sorkin isn't funny

    Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip just goes to prove Aaron Sorkin isn't funny. I thought Sports Night proved it but apparently NBC didn't think so.

    S.60 o.t.S.S. has it's funny moments (the Rob Riener episode had me laughing during the sketch portions), but so did the West Wing. I think S.60 o.t.S.S.would work a lot better if it were set on a news magazine show instead of a sketch comedy show. The behind the scene bits would have transfered well. In my opinion Sorkin is atempting to disect comedy and like most disections, we don't need to see the ugly inside to enjoy the completed entity.

    Mr. Sorkin needs to stick to taunt political dramas and leave the comedy to the professionals. Now go and enjoy 30 Rock.
  • 10 minutes into episode 4, with sincere disappointment, I officially threw in the towel on this one.

    I really wanted to like this show, because I love Mathew Perry, was a big fan of The West Wing and really liked the original premise. The first episode knocked my socks off, but everything since has been shrill, uninspired and repetetive. The constant religious references are annoying, the relationship between Perry and the actress is tedious and the melodramatic charting of weekly ratings for a show watched by less than 1% of the country is laughable. I stuck with it longer than I should have, hoping it might again realize the promise of the first episode, but the ex-lovers squabble in the first few minutes of episode 4 was straight out of a bad episode of Ally McBeal. This show has proven to be completely pointless and should be hastily exiled to the "who gives a s__ channel"!
  • What a concept: a mediocre tv show about a mediocre tv show.

    What a concept: a mediocre tv show about a mediocre tv show. The curse of the comu-drama: never quite funny enough and never quite dramatic enough. The opening segment blatantly rips off the movie Network, then tries to cover for it\'s lack of originality by repeatedly mentioning Network and it\'s screenwriter, Paddy Chayefsky. Producers of this show overestimate the public\'s interest in shallow, ratings obsessed network types. Yes, the Amanda Peet character is there playing the \"good cop\" network exectutive who actually has a sense of humor and adventure. She is the only bright spot in the overcrowded lineup of cliched characters, but won\'t be able to salvage this mess by herself.

    Then near the end we hear Under Pressure by Bowie/Queen creeping onto the sountrack. Original? Not at all. What a shame that such a hyped show, a show that supposedly decries the blandness of television, instead just contributes to it. Don\'t believe the hype.
  • pretentious

    the show & characters are pretentious, overly dramatic, angsty & full of self-importance; making the show feel contrived & unconvincing, especially since it's about comedy writers, not say, medics, soldiers or criminal lawyers. The characters all have similar personalities (moody, sarcastic wannabe rebels). The skits Studio 60 produce are all God-awful lol! However, the show was mildly interesting & fast-paced. I'm a huge Matthew Perry fan, which is the only reason I kept watching the show
  • A good premise, a good cast...but the writing absolutely killed it.

    As a fan of "Sports Night" and "The West Wing," I eagerly awaited Aaron Sorkin's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." As the news of the cast rolled out (Bradley Whitford! Matthew Perry! Ed Asner!) my enthusiasm grew. The pilot was sensational, classic Sorkin and it was the promise of good things to come.

    Then the show really started.

    Was "Studio 60" a romantic comedy? Satire? Hot-button issue drama? Backstage at a sketch comedy show? Yes, and no, it was all and none of these things. Mostly, it was a mess, a waste of talent in front of and behind the camera and the blame can be laid at the feet of its scribe, Aaron Sorkin.

    Clearly miffed with NBC over "The West Wing," and with ex-gal pal Kristen Chenowith and with Republicans and with who knows how many others, Sorkin began peppering the show with non-too-thinly-veiled rants against his detractors, ultimately turning his characters into a gigantic mouthpiece. Instead of inspiring, the show was condescending (comedy can save America! Christianity is stupid! Blacks just need to be told what to do!) and dull.

    I know fans of "Studio 60" rally behind the show and say "It was too smart! That's why people didn't like it! They were too stupid to appreciate it." Well, I don't consider myself stupid. I can tell you the primary reason I didn't enjoy "Studio 60" - I didn't care about the characters. The forced romances between Matt and Harriet and Danny and Jordan were practically chemistry free (Danny was basically a stalker before Jordan "succumbed.") The "cast" were all prima donnas and the only highlight was Steven Weber as Jack, the network exec who did what had to be done. Maybe the show should have been about running a network with Weber in the lead, with Ed Asner in support.

    And for a show that was supposed to be about the trials and tribulations of mounting a live comedy show every week, Sorkin certainly found his "drama" from other venues (Iraq, Asian land deals, law suits, etc.) I wasn't expecting an SNL retread. After all, "Sports Night" wasn't all about sports. But it WAS the world where the characters worked, and it reflected in their lives and relationships. It's something "Sports Night" understood - the guys and gals at CSC didn't think (or act) like they were better and smarter than everyone else, and they didn't think they were saving the world. You'd have thought national policy stemmed from an NBS soundstage.

    I think Aaron Sorkin had too many axes to grind, and that revenge-mentality snuck into his writing. I watched "Studio 60" up through the end, hoping that knowing the show was ending would inspire some stronger writing, but instead we were treated to the hostage crisis and the baby birth. Ultimately, the blame rests with him. He had a great cast, network support and a built-in audience. It's a shame "Studio 60" wasn't a bigger hit, but it's a bigger shame that it wasn't a better show.
  • Unimpressive, disappointing, Lethargic

    I have not been overly impressed with this show. I don't find that the story-line flows very well. The characters aren't all that intriguing. The tempo of the show is slow and lethargic. I'm just not really impressed by it. I don't think that the parts that are supposed to be humorous are timed very well. I'm so disappointed in the whole thing, I can hardly even stand to give it a second chance, but second chance it got. I watched the 1st two eppies and was not impressed, I thought it might take time to really get into it, understand the direction, so I gave it four more episodes, and I'm sorry to say, I just can't do it anymore, I'm just wholly unimpressed. No thumbs up for me on this one.
  • Pilot

    After only watching the pilot I was bored. It seemed like an attempt at advanced "not to dressy" comedy that it fell completely flat. The acting was a good solid E for Effort but even Matthew Perry failed to deliver his charm. A couple of decent comedic moments didn't make up for the fact that everyone just seemed to be talking non-stop about almost nothing and the skit shot itself didn't seem to have anything funny about it at all. Familiar somehow?
  • The show has the same attraction as watching monkeys at the zoo.

    This show has a cast of actors I really like. I like that Matthew Perry was given a chance to show he has acting abilities far beyond the character of he played on \"Friends\". I like that they pulled in DL Hughley and brought in Ayda Field from \"Blue Collar\". In short, this ensemble, to me, really blends well.

    There are some weaknesses. The most obvious weakness, and illustrative of others, is the anti-Chrisitan theme. Attacking Christians right out of the starting gate shows how myopic the creators and writers are. First, they got Harriet\'s character all wrong. No dedicated Christian would be doing and saying the things her character does. Harriet resembles a \"cultural Christian\", not a real Christian (you can find them all over the place in \"flyover country\"). But then, the creators and writers have their own prejudices, and most likely do not know many real Christians. Even if one disagrees with Christianity, and many do, it is worth finding out what they are really all about before trying to portray them. I can only hope future episodes provide some correction. When I watched the first 2 episodes, it was like watching monkeys at the zoo. Thinking that all around them is all there is, the monkeys are oblivious to the larger world around them. They marvel at the people who watch them, without understanding. The creators and writers of this show attack Christians as if they are some mentally ill little group of oddballs. Like the monkeys in the cage, they think their own little Hollywood world is all there is that matters. They forget the larger world their sponsors deal with has tens of millions of those \"crazy Christians\". I am hoping they have a plan whereby they start off with this typical narrow minded anti-Christian bigotry, and during the season, come around to a realization by some of the characters that what they were doing was no different than other forms of bigotry - doing to Christians what they would never do to blacks, women, Muslims, or Jews.

    It is good enough to keep watching, but if the anti-Christian storyline goes unabated, then say goodbye to this show after one season. You don\'t insult tens of millions of people who buy your sponsors\' products and stay on TV for very long.
  • Seriously underwhelmed

    I was disappointed with the much so that I had to be talked into trying it again next week. Perhaps this show will pick up steam, but it was trying too hard this week. The "inside Hollywood" action wasn't interesting or insightful. The worst of it, other than Timothy Busfield, there's not one character that's likeable. With all the hype, I expected this to be bright and funny. What I watched was so dull and predictable that I was bored 10 minutes after I began to watch. If NBC is trying to recapture the glory years, I don't think this is the vehicle to do it.
  • I am hoping for better things as the show falls into stride.

    There is so much buzz about this show and initially I was really excited about it and now, I am mostly just interested to see where it\'s going. The rant by Wes in the Pilot episode was so cliche I thought maybe David E. Kelly had composed it. And having all the writers and execs being white with the only twist being a white woman as the new exec who is the under dog so she sees the side of the writers. I can only hope this gets better because the sentimental/ righteous crap right now is too much.
  • The critics stroke Aaron Sorkin's ego. Again.

    Once again the overhyped mediocre talent of Aaron Sorkin graces the TV screen. Such witty patter and bleeding liberal hearts . . . sigh . . . if only everyone was like this wouldn't the world be a better place? Bring barf bag when listening to their overly sentimental diatribes. A network president and chairman constantly hanging around a weekend sketch comedy show? Why in the world would they care? Man, in real life these guys would get fired so fast it'd make your spin.

    Star-crossed lovers who want to be together but just can't bring themselves to do it? What an original plot line. Why do they call this guy a genius? I guess Studio 60 is proof that people like to be spoken to in a condescending and holier than thou kind of way. I guess the viewers deserve it.
  • Lost between the West Wing and the West Coast

    I really like the cast. From the opening scenes, it was clear that there is a chemistry that grabs you attention. Even if Amanda Peet\'s Network TV Exec (Jordan) has the same level of authenticity as Lisa Edelstein\'s Hospital Honcho on House (ie, none), and the Bradley Whitford (Danny) / Matthew Perry (Matt) combo are cookie-cutter, smartest-guy-in-the-room characters ripped from the pages of the West Wing, the Steven Webber (Jack), Tim Busfield (Cal) and especially DL Hughley (Simon) portrayals shine. I give a lot of credit to Hughley. While Dane Cook has demonstrated how easy (although pointless) it is for an actor to play a comedian, I would imagine it\'s very difficult for an actor to play an actor, and even harder for a comedian to play a comedian. The rest of the ensemble displays an underrated knack for being part of the story without the need for so much attention. Except, not surprisingly, for the adorable Sarah Paulson (Harriet). This portrayal has all the subtlety of Ellen Pompeo\'s Merideth (ie, none), even borrowing the lispy speach affect. Although the actors are almost invisible (as they probably should be), I like the Ricky & Ron roles, even if they are a bit cliche. What is irking me is the cliche insecurity in all the other no-name upstarts. The problem overall is a lack of character development: It\'s being rammed down our throats that Matt & Danny are flawed people, but god-like heroes on the job; Harriet is an awesome star, with a hint of vulnerability (not); Ricky & Ron are insubbordinate jerks, but will benefit from the tough love shown by Hero Danny; Jordan is a hard-nosed pro at work, but has some skeleton\'s in the closet from her personal life.

    I\'m sure I\'ll follow on for a few more weeks, just to see if they tone down the Harriet, take the token off of Simon, and move the spotlight onto members of the ensemble. I doubt it. I lost interest in the West Wing a long time ago because it fell into the formula that so obviously envelops Studio 60. The difference here is that while the West Wing was often glib about the rather serious matter of government affairs, Studio 60 is way too serious about the rather inconsequential matter of a sketch-comedy show.

    The really painful connection to the old West Wing is the underlying jackhammer message that people in government / show business are smarter and better than the rest of us. I guess it\'s okay to hold your characters up there when they\'re running a country, but people loved Seinfeld and Entourage (and put up with that Larry David show) for embracing the exact opposite philosophy on show business.

    Finally, under the fine-tuning category, I hope we don\'t get more of the show within a show. The \'Cold Open\' episode demonstrated that the idea of singing about your producer doing blow is waaay funnier than actually singing about your producer doing blow. Matt captured that moment perfectly: staring at the stage, through the glass window of his office, with a blank expression. I know how he felt.
  • It's The West Wing, but less interesting.

    I loved The West Wing--the rapid-fire dialog, the way it made me feel like these people that are running our country are really smart, the conversations it occasionally sparked in my household about political topics--but the formula doesn't translate well in Studio 60.

    Yes, there's plenty of witty banter, which is entertaining at moments that it doesn't seem to forced. Yes, the characters in the show are intelligent--but instead of the warm feeling I had dreaming that our nation's leadership was smart, there's a hollow feeling that these Hollywood people are good at their jobs. The biggest difference between Studio 60 and The West Wing is that the West Wing was sometimes about important topics, while Studio 60 is a TV show about making a TV show. I liked seeing that the president's job is difficult--somehow I can't quite sympathize the same way with a late-night TV show producer.

    Studio 60 is caught in a grey area of humor and drama, and unfortunately doesn't shine in either category. I might watch it if it's on, but it's not the sort of show I'll go out of my way to find.
  • just average

    The 2 main characters are very good, but what lets it down is the support cast.

    Sarah Paulson has no chemistry with anyone - so her story arcs really drag. . Hughley tries, but he is boxed into a stereotype a few episodes in and becomes one dimensional.

    The network characters become bland and again a bit one dimensional.

    There is some great dialog in the series and some very good performances, but as a series it it is kind of fractured, if there were a few different casting choices made and a better character backstory to some of the characters and better sketches for the show it would probably have been more successful.

    I am a huge Sorkin fan, but the West Wing was a really tough act to follow so this may have colored my judgement.
  • This show could be a classic if it tried to do less.

    Studio 60 (which needs, by the way, to change its name to "Studio 60" and lose the clunky excess baggage of "on the Sunset Strip") has the cast, the sets, and the writers to be a classic -- witty, dramatic, funny, engaging.

    Everything that I like about Studio 60 happens off the stage of their Saturday Night Live clone show. Everything I think is poorly done or simply distracting happens on the stage of their fictional comedy show.

    West Wing, a magnificent offering I wish was still on the air, wasted little time showing the President being publicly presidential -- on stage, as it were. Its greatness was in keeping us behind the scenes with all the folks that worked hard to make the presidency a really great show.

    Studio 60 would do well to learn from that example. We don't want to see the comedy sketch show. If we did, we'd be watching SNL, not Studio 60. We love getting to know the folks that make it happen, and watching all the stuff that goes on in order for the show to get on the air and entertain. Now, that's interesting!
  • It was a really nice show, but it was.

    After having seen the pilot episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, I am left with a sudden sense of excitement for the series to begin. The show hits the gate hard as a veteran executive producer of a late night comedy show (Judd Hirsch) goes on a verbal assault on live television, a moment straight out of Network (which the news media quickly catches onto). The studio is in complete disarray only minutes after the show ends, especially since the network's new president (Amanda Peet) as only been on the job for one day. How can they repair the damage done? Why not call in the two men who made the show a hit (Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford), and have since been fired two years prior. But things aren't going to be so easy to fix since there are execs just waiting to shred all three of them to pieces.

    The show is pure Aaron Sorkin: it's witty, intelligent, and heart-felt about issues. It's also a blast to watch as a cast of incredibly talented actors and actresses work together to make Sorkin's words shine. But one thing Studio 60 isn't is a retread of either Sports Night or The West Wing. It's a completely different monster. This time, Sorkin's looking to dive deep into the worlds of Hollywood, Mass Media, and Big Business. With Perry and Whitford, we have televisions new odd couple, both incredibly funny both alone and together. Peet brings her A-game with her as she takes on her most ambitious part yet. And let's not forget some great contributions by D.L. Hughley, Timothy Busfield and Steven Webber. And this is coming straight from the pilot. Who knows where the show will go from here. But I know where I'm going to be on Monday nights.
  • Shows potential.

    Studio 60 follows a sketch show (think saturday night live) which seems to be going down in the ratings. After the head writer is fired for expressing his feelings towards the net work Matt and Danny are called in as the new head writers. From then on the sshow follows the two and the cast members of the show. Each episode usualyy takes place over a week leading up to the shows airing. If you are thinking that this is a sketch show and your going to be getting some good laughs your wrong, the sketches are not funny one little bit but that does not matter. If you enjoy a drama with a bit of humour Studio 60 is for you.
  • Difficult to hear characters; a little disappointing; will suffer by comparisions to "The West Wing" (too soon to have "WW" chars in "Studio 60"?).

    There were moments that I couldn't even
    figure out what the heck the "Studio 60" characters
    were saying (either they spoke too quickly or
    were drowned-out by background noise),
    but I had the same problem with the "West Wing"
    and managed to get passed it!
    (thank goodness for closed-captioning!)

    Overall, I was a little disappointed, but I'm keeping in mind that this episode was designed
    to get us immersed in the characters.

    There were things I thought were amazing, such as Ed Asner being the head of the TV network; on the other hand, is that ALL he can do?
    (He's the head editor of Mary Tyler Moore's TV show,
    then he's the head editor of a newspaper in his "Lou Grant" show, and now, THIS? Geez, talk about type-casting!
    But, I'll admit he looked fitter than I would have expected!)

    I also thought that some of the characters were ludicrous.
    Amanda Peet's character, for example, is WAY too perky!
    Most TV Exec's work 12-20 hour days,
    and she looks as if she has no problem sleeping!
    Where are the bags under the eyes?

    Also, firing Judd Hirsch for his diatribe was ridiculous,
    because that's exactly the kind of thing TV Execs want to see! Anything for publicity!

    Bradley Whitford's character wearing glasses?

    Timothy Busfield's character being a semi-weenie?
    There ain't no weenies in the control room!

    Matthew Perry's character being overly doped up
    following a spinal operation, and nobody stopping him from swigging down a huge glass of wine? Later, he jogs up a long flight of stairs two steps at a time! And then he miraculously
    sobers up near the end? What a great message!
    "Hey, kids, do drugs and alcohol and feel WAY better!"

    And I couldn't figure out the story line between
    Matthew Perry's character and his religious girlfriend!
    They harped on the National Anthem so much
    that it buried any chemistry that may have been there.

    And I didn't expect them to grab so many actors from "West Wing"! It's a little too disconcerting to see so many familiar faces cast in a totally different way, such as "Josh" being a coke fiend?
    And how bizarre is it that the studio
    would not hire someone who's addicted to some drug?
    C'mon, now! Hollywood practically REQUIRES it!
    And, wasn't the Judd Hirsch a-la-"Network" rant more than a little predictable?

    The "West Wing" offered great plots and vistas because we know so little about what happens behind those walls and Washington's power bases.
    But TV is something we do know (or *think* we know!) a bit about, and there is hardly any place for the plots to go beyond the set of "Studio 60"
    (a President may travel to Europe, but why would a "Saturday Night Live"-like Exec or other S6 character have a reason to go anywhere other than their California venue?).

    I don't think S6 will be anywhere near as good as "West Wing", and it will certainly
    suffer from comparisons to WW
    (which, IMHO, for the last two years, WW
    wasn't anywhere at the level of its first five).

    But, I'm willing to watch, because there's nothing else on!
  • Show is promising but needs to get rid of the \"Harriet\" character. Also, viewers needed to be reminded that the actors on the underlying Studio 60 show are comedy actors. They should be allowed to be funny on occasion.

    Studio 60 is promising. I enjoyed the West Wing and Sports Night, and this show shares some of the elements of those fine shows. I have a serious criticism, however. Get rid of the Harriet character. The character is completely unbelievable, and the actress that plays her (Sara Paulson?) is just as false when she woodenly delivers her lines. The idea of fundamentalist being on an SNL-type show is fodder for a comedy sketch, and not a believable character in a drama about the backstage production of such a show. Moreover, that actress is just terrible. She and Matthew Perry generate about as much heat as a small kitchen appliance bulb. She sucks the energy out of every scene she is in. If the relationship between her and Matthew Perry\'s character is what is supposed to fuel these plots, then the show will die a quick death. Write her out or dramatically reduce her exposure for the good of the show.

    On a more general note, the show would benefit by lightening up some of the backstage scenes with the cast. I know that the staging of the actual Studio 60 comedy sketches should be viewing critically and in light of the underlying plot point to which they correspond, but the underlying fictional show is supposed to be about comedy. The purported comedy actors should show that they are funny when they are off-stage as well, at least occassionally. I think that having good comedy actors like Nate Corrdry and D.L. Hughley being funny would make the whole conceit of the show tighter and slightly less procedural.
  • Not up to the Sorkin standard.

    The pilot episode of "Studio 60" starts off great but quickly loses steam. The cast is pretty solid, with the exception of Amanda Peet, who is absolutely horrible in this role and completely unbelievable as a hard-nosed network executive. The problem is that after the opening sequence, any scene that doesn't include Matthew Perry or Bradley Whitford just drags, and this isn't the fault of the performers. The writing and pacing just isn't up to snuff here. The set-up is great and suggests a great series to follow, but if all the episodes lag as this one does, "Studio 60" may not last very long. A huge nod to Perry and Whitford though, as they are absolutley incredible here. Perfect casting here, with that one aforementioned exception.
  • The Good: Excellent, large, ensemble cast, amazing production values, huge sets, intriguing premise, fast paced The Bad: Is this supposed to be funny or serious? preachy and pretentious, makes problems seem bigger than they are


    Shouldn't the show that this highly publicized, and big budget show is based on get some cash and attention? After watching the first 15 minutes of this Aaron Sorkin drama, I couldn't help but think that shouldn't NBC be shooting a little money to Lorne Michaels (whose equivalent gets fired in the first episode) over at Saturday Night Live. I mean after all the guy is losing Tina Fey and many others to 30 Rock and because of large contracts. Meanwhile, Studio 60 probably costs upwards of 10 million dollars an episode to produce (Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, DL Hughley have to be getting a couple million an episode). My next problem with Studio 60 is that it feels way more like the West Wing than SNL. I'm going to wait to judget this fact until after a couple more episodes since the pilot was really just setting the stage for Matt Perry and that guy from the West Wing (I had to look it up, his name is Bradley Whitford and he's married to the mom of Malcolm in the Middle!). My feeling is though that this movie is not going to be very funny, and I'm positive that behind the scenes of SNL when Jimmy Fallon, Will Ferrell, etc. was there was very funny. I'm hoping it is not always so ominously shot with heavy shadows and dark lighting via West Wing and lightens up every once and awhile. That all being said, the first episode was entertaining and the writing is quick. I like the large ensemble cast and have always thought that having one gives more depth to a show. I still don't believe Amanda Peet as a TV exec, but she was OK. Matthew Perry was very good and I'm hoping he'll bring some humore and Bradley Whitford seemed to be pretty much the same guy from the West Wing....oh except he does Cocaine. For me the show was at its best in the booth during the show trying to organize the hectic live show. It was at its worst when the President and his of the network and his minions? were in a room freaking out about 53 minutes of unplanned airtime like it was a Nuclear Threat. This is exactly what I hated about the West Wing. I hate when things are absolutely overdramatized and take the centerstage as an utter disaster and problem when really what's the big deal. The West Wing would do it when someone flubbed a newsconference and I hope Studio 60 doesn't do it when a character misses a line on a live show. All in all, like the West Wing, I anticipate Studio 60 being a smash hit and only hope that it sticks to its intriguing premise and carves out its own style. There is a lot of potential and though there may be a few kinks and cracks in its armor, I think they will be repaired before the armor shatters...or I'm hoping. VERDICT: *** 3/4 stars
    I'm Still Watching
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8