jmullFeb 20th, 2007 - 02:57:25

I think Studio 60 suffered from inevitable West Wing expectations. And for some reason, the romance angles were less than satisfying. I think given a chance, it could have found it's indentity and worked.

Report this comment

Trace OakleyFeb 20th, 2007 - 03:18:43

>'Studio's' failure can be analyzed for several reasons: It was a drama about a >comedy show but the skits weren't funny.

Where do I start in pointing out the idiocy of this sentence? The “skits” as you call them make up a very small portion of the show, and are never seen in their entirety, for good reason: STUDIO 60 isn’t a sketch (or skit) show, it is, as you pointed out, a drama. The primary thrust of the show involves the struggles, pitfalls, and only occasional triumphs of the creative process. It is, in short, a show about people who believe that comedy is more complex than Jim Carrey talking out of his rear end, or Adam Sandler getting hit in the private parts. If you want to watch “skits,” tune into one of the shows that serves as the basis for STUDIO 60.

I am reminded of two movies, which, based on your obviously limited taste and experience, you probably haven’t seen. They are ALL ABOUT EVE, and ALL THAT JAZZ. Two classic films that take place behind the scenes in the world of theatre. In ALL THAT JAZZ we see rehearsal scenes of the musical Joe Gideon (the main character) is directing, and it is clearly flawed, if not an outright flop. Does this make ALL THAT JAZZ a bad movie? No, It is al the more interesting to watch Gideon struggle, and literally kill himself to make it better. ALL ABOUT EVE depicts a career-driven actress who is about to open in a run-of-the-mill play. The film is not about that, however, it’s about the relationships, rivalries, and social jockeying that take place in show business.

Saying STUDIO 60 is a failure because “It was a drama about a comedy show but the skits weren't funny,” is like saying WEST WING would have been better if President Bartlett never faced any kind of opposition or crisis.

>The casting was awful, save for Matthew Perry and Timothy Busfield, not much >else worked.

Have you ever actually watched the show, or are Matthew Perry and Timothy Busfield the only cast members you’ve heard of? From Sarah Paulson to Steven Weber to D.L. Hughley, the performances are brilliant, and the casting choices spot on. Tabbing Ed Asner to play a veteran media magnate was an especially inspired choice. Yeah, I know you don’t know who Ed Asner is, but you really should. Oh, and by the way, your above sentence is grammatically incorrect.

>The writing for every story line was flat, and no amount of Sorkin soap-box >speeches worked.

Gosh, it really stinks to not be able to write, and then have artists like Sorkin rub your nose in it. Fortunately, you have the Internet, where a guy who couldn’t secure a pie-judging gig at a county fair, can pass himself off as a legitimate television critic.

Don’t forget to Tivo DEAL OR NO DEAL.

Report this comment

Bitchie McSnitFeb 20th, 2007 - 03:44:21

I agree with the assessment-this show stunk on ice-the West Wing is brilliant
Sorkin is a genius-
this show had no magic
plus I thought DL Hughley was miscast-he isn't that funny, smart or talented-why is he always on tv? He must have some great friendships...

Report this comment

MK999Feb 20th, 2007 - 07:24:42

I am disappointed that this show will be cancelled.
This list of 'reasons' for its failure listed in this article is ridiculous. The only reason it failed is because it was shown to an audience to ignorant to enjoy its comedy and remarks on the status of free information via television.

While I am sad to see this show go, perhaps it is for the best. Now it is no longer being wasted on people who can't truly understand its brilliance.

Report this comment

David J. Wade (New Mexico)Feb 20th, 2007 - 10:56:50

I really liked 'Studio 60'. It was intelligent, clearly had characters with flaws to work with, and had marvelous acting.

It also seemed to be about the writing craft. Writing is hard. It isn't something very many people can pull off 'on deadline'. Once that deadline is established, most writers begin to die.

I find it especially hard to value criticisms by illiterate people who don't know enough about the craft to criticize with proper English.

Though I do love almost everything that Paul Haggis writes, I suspect that we are still too close to 'The Troubles' to appreciate another series about 'Black Irishmen'. So in addition to being unhappy about losing 'Studio 60', I also worry that we are going to get a 'Bad Irish Gangsters' weekly morality play to replace it.

Report this comment

wildflowerFeb 20th, 2007 - 12:42:34

I am a fan of Aaron Sorkin, but I'm not surprised it is on 'hiatus'. The review is more harsh than necessary, yes, but let's be honest. The casting and writing needs/ needed to be better. Two shows ago, there was finally a great scene with Amanda Peet's character telling Danny that his pursuit of her was hurting her career. In full disclosure, I have disliked this character for a while now. Many people tell me they liked the roof scene that happened the very next week, but that's not enough. The show has not been internally consistent. It has not been the intelligent, witty show we expect from Aaron Sorkin. And the casting is not uniformly good. Is it Amanda Peet or the writing for her character? A little of both. If it comes back, it needs to recapture the couple of episodes where it seemed to have finally found its stride -- where it explores different kinds of relationships and the struggles it takes to maintain them. We need to care. We need to be given something to care about.

Report this comment

Billy-BallFeb 20th, 2007 - 15:52:44

I attribute the failure of Studio 60 primarily to Paulson. Because of her inability to do much of anything, Sorkin was forced to disobey the golden rule of television, “Show don’t tell.” Initial episodes were rife with characters telling us how incredibly talented Paulson was because clearly no one was believing it by what they saw. This miscasting more than any other reason changed the way the script needed to be written.

When you look at “30 Rock,” clearly Tina Fey would have preferred her friend Rachel Dratch to have had the female lead role, but wiser heads prevailed and Jane Krakowski was the last moment substitute and I don’t think anyone would disagree with the decision. Sorkin, who has always had difficulty in writing for women, was lost when Paulson could deliver nothing to the table.

Report this comment

viewerFeb 20th, 2007 - 17:13:15

I watched the first episode with great anticipation and that was the last time. The show's premise appeared to be 'let's insult and offend Christians to the greatest extent possible.' It succeeded. Congratulations. Such success lead to it going off the air. May all similarly spirited shows end up the same way.

Report this comment

IsabellaMar 7th, 2007 - 14:23:52

I loved it... and I hope we get to see the last episodes.

Report this comment