Save Studio 60

November 1, 2006 8:18 AM

Save Studio 60!They did it with Arrested Development and they did it with Firefly. They did it with Freaks and Geeks and they did it with Sports Night. They're working to preemptively stop them from doing it again to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.
posted by cjoh (143 comments total)

Because it worked so well with those other shows...
posted by Cyrano at 8:21 AM on November 1, 2006

right...
posted by yonation at 8:22 AM on November 1, 2006

Why would you mention a bunch of great shows that were cancelled anyway? Is that supposed to be incentive?

Also, Firefly, Freaks & Geeks, and Arrested Development are all classics of modern TV. I can understand the following Sorkin's Sports Night gets, too. But Studio 60? Meh.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:22 AM on November 1, 2006

Don't forget the shameful cancelation of Sports Night, Aaron Sorkin's inspired sit com.
posted by cal71 at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2006

I really like Studio 60, and I'm bummed about the news it's all but on the chopping block, but seriously, man... online petitions never do anything.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2006

Is there a site where I can sign a petition to preemptively stop the preemptive saving of that terrible show?
posted by educatedslacker at 8:26 AM on November 1, 2006

I couldn't sit through five minutes of it.
posted by empath at 8:27 AM on November 1, 2006

This will go as well as the last Studio 60 post.
posted by smackfu at 8:27 AM on November 1, 2006

For all I care, gimme Futurama back dammit ! Like NOW
posted by elpapacito at 8:30 AM on November 1, 2006

[They've] got to act! And act now!
posted by hal9k at 8:34 AM on November 1, 2006

Futurama is coming back.

Studio 60 either needs a radical revamp or a cancellation. I'd be happy with the former, especially if they let me write it so I can include a bit where a bear consumes 1/2 the cast.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 8:34 AM on November 1, 2006

yeah, sorry. Some shows deserve cancelation. I couldn't get past the first twenty minutes of this steaming pile. Now they're just trying to discredit the whole online petition thing entirely.
posted by inthe80s at 8:34 AM on November 1, 2006

If Studio 60 does wind up being canceled, at least Aaron Sorkin can get back to doing what he loves best:

mushrooms.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:36 AM on November 1, 2006

It's no Firefly, that's for damn sure.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:37 AM on November 1, 2006

Also, the problem with Studio 60 is that its lead-in is Heroes. Completely different audience. Whoever writes the schedules at NBC must be profoundly retarded.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:38 AM on November 1, 2006

They did it with Chicago Hope! They did it with Dave's World!
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:39 AM on November 1, 2006

Nonono, you're all parsing it wrong. Observe:

"They did it with Arrested Development"

"It" in this case is "petition it to be renewed/saved".

"and they did it with Firefly."

"It", again, is "petition it to be renewed/saved".

"They did it with Freaks and Geeks and they did it with Sports Night."

Once again, "it" is "petitioning it to be renewed/saved".

As we can see, the article "it" means "petitioning that something be renewed/saved".

So if you look at the last sentence:

"They're working to preemptively stop them from doing it again to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip."

The sentence means "They're working to preemptively stop them from petitioning that Studio 60 be saved".
posted by Bugbread at 8:39 AM on November 1, 2006

I am a big fan of Sports Night and early West Wing, but I have found Studio 60 un-funny, boring, smug, and unbearably highbrow. Last week's episode at the wrap party was unwatchable.
\\also big Firefly and Arrested Development fan...
posted by Lord Kinbote at 8:39 AM on November 1, 2006

I've been enjoying it but, you know, let it go man. It's just not worth saving.

Arrested Development and Freaks and Geeks were both brilliant shows that nobody quite knew what to do with. Studio 60 is mildly entertaining but not quite as groundbreaking. It's just another drama.

As long as they keep 30 Rock I'll be happy. Mmmmmm... Tina Fey.
posted by bondcliff at 8:39 AM on November 1, 2006

Considering the tear Sorkin has been on with Studio 60 by hamfistedly preaching about the decline of western television, perhaps it's only poetic that Studio 60 gets cancelled.
posted by benATthelocust at 8:41 AM on November 1, 2006

I really enjoy the show. I can see how some wouldn't like it, but they can just change the channel to watch Deal or No Deal.

But it's really been set up to fail. A drama about a comedy is a weird beast, and this one was pitched to audiences more as a comedy than anything, and in that it's disappointing people.

That, and they air it in the dead of night, and have Heroes as a lead-in. Not that Heroes is bad (I've only caught part of an episode), but I just don't think they're aimed at the same audiences.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:42 AM on November 1, 2006

I've never actually heard of Studio 60, so I have no opinion on it's cancellation. But this line:

We, the undersigned believe in smart television...

makes me wonder: do 'smart' and 'televison' actually go together well? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with smart entertainment, just wondering if a medium that exists primarily as something to veg out in front of is the best delivery system for it.
posted by jonmc at 8:46 AM on November 1, 2006

I would sign a petition to ensure its cancellation, it is such a terrible show.
posted by Falconetti at 8:47 AM on November 1, 2006

Save Ferris.
posted by spicynuts at 8:48 AM on November 1, 2006

Firefly was no Firefly, that's for damn sure.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:54 AM on November 1, 2006

do 'smart' and 'televison' actually go together well?

Come on. There's plenty of smart tv. The fact that you sit on a couch to experience the medium is not a legitimate indictment of the medium. You sit on a couch to read a book, which can also be called vegging out. There's just as much signal to noise ratio (emphasis on RATIO) as there is in movies and like with movies you simply have to work to find it. I would offer Frontline, POV, Egg, BBC World News, Discovery Channel, HBO Original Programming, etc etc as examples.
posted by spicynuts at 8:54 AM on November 1, 2006

I'm doing my best to save Beekman's World.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:55 AM on November 1, 2006

do 'smart' and 'televison' actually go together well?

well, if "smart" means "does not assume the TV audience is made of rubes", yes, I think there's a place for "smart". the lowest common denominator is just too low, frankly

now I don't care much about Studio 60 and Sorkin may at this point be, imo -- dare I say this? -- a bit of a has-been. but from Law & Order on, I think you can find lots of recent and not-so-recent examples of good, entertaining TV shows that assume their audience has something resembling a functioning brain inside their skulls. entertaining does not mean dumb, and smart does not mean "as fun as watching paint dry"

the alternative is a medium dominated by Reality TV and Bill O'Reilly
posted by matteo at 8:56 AM on November 1, 2006

Sorkin let Sports Night die. (Another network showed interest in it but he decided to concentrate on the pretentious WW instead.) So crap to him.

And this self indulgent exercise?

Well, first make Aaron the Ego get someone who knows how to write sketch comedy to do the show within the show.

Then fire the person who lights the set like a morgue.

After Gilmore Girls goes off the air, hire Lauren Graham as a regular so she can teach her BF and most of the rest of the cast how to do comedy/ drama. (The two West Wing holdovers are OK, but it's too soon after that show not to think of them as Josh and The Reporter.)

Oh my gawd, why have I even thought this much about it?
posted by NorthernLite at 8:56 AM on November 1, 2006

and I'm still sorry they canceled Boomtown
posted by matteo at 8:57 AM on November 1, 2006

My response to Studio 60 is ambivalent. I recognized that it was "good" yet at the same time I wanted to turn it off and go do something else, which I proceeded to do.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2006

I never really understood all of this Aaron Sorkin love. His shows are heavy-handed and preachy and didactic and uninteresting. Yes, even West Wing. Especially West Wing.

I tried to watch the first 15 minutes of Studio 60. My impression was yet again confirmed.
posted by contessa at 9:00 AM on November 1, 2006

Fuck Sorkin. Joss Whedon should write everything on TV. Everything. I'd even pay cash money to see a Whedon-scripted reality show.

(Oh sweet jeebus, I did just say that out loud, didn't I? Put the computer down and go get more coffee. NOW.)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:03 AM on November 1, 2006

On hitting post. Yeah, contessa. Totally. Never quite got the boyfriend's West Wing thing...
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:04 AM on November 1, 2006

I'm beginng to suspect that people just watch TV so that they can spearhead "Save ______!!!" campaigns.



Bring back Sheriff Lobo!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:07 AM on November 1, 2006

about 500 times better than the joke of a show that firefly ... what a childish, silly, unintelligent show. Seriously? People liked that?

studio 60 is a great show.
posted by Espoo2 at 9:09 AM on November 1, 2006

AHEM.

that firefly WAS.
posted by Espoo2 at 9:12 AM on November 1, 2006

Very funny, Espoo2.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:13 AM on November 1, 2006

the alternative is a medium dominated by Reality TV and Bill O'Reilly

or The Honeymooners, Sanford & Son and Bewitched (which would be fine with me). I wouldn't call either show 'dumb' by any means, but they weren't self-consciously intellectual either. When I want mental stimulation, I'll read or surf the 'net, TV always just seemed something to drink beer in front of between dinner and bedtime.

that assume their audience has something resembling a functioning brain inside their skulls

yes, but to relax, I like to turn that fucntioning off and just go hahahahurfdurf for awhile and TV functions best for that (IMHO, YMMV, avoid direct contact with pants)
posted by jonmc at 9:16 AM on November 1, 2006

I actually thought Firefly was a good story, it just wasn't executed effectively.

Studio 60 is boring.
posted by tadellin at 9:17 AM on November 1, 2006

Studio 60's first 2 eps were good then the next 2 were a bit trashy and lowbrow. The whole WW lighting concept is a neat schtick but it might need to take a break for a few years. Having said that I'd be happy if they changed its timeslot to a more suitable lead and yes hired someone funny to write the in-show jokes.
posted by cavalier at 9:21 AM on November 1, 2006

LOLZ I HATE TV THAT MAKES ME INTELLIGENT AND SUPERIOR

</snark>
I sure liked Firefly.
BSG is pretty great too.
posted by symphonik at 9:24 AM on November 1, 2006

We can't let Studio 60 get cancelled BECAUSE HIS BROTHER IS IN AFGHANISTAN! It's the only way to support our troops.

What a waste of great talent in that show. Aaron Sorkin needs a major dose of humility so he can go back to writing good dialogue without all that messianic ego-stroking bullshit. Throwing Studio 60 show to the wolves seems like a good start.
posted by mkultra at 9:25 AM on November 1, 2006

Please visit my new site, www.cancelmoredamnTVshowstomakeway formoreLawandOrderspin-offs.net. With the recent fall schedule, I have been unable to watch Law and Order for 12+ hours in a row without resorting to waist-high pile of DVDs, bootleg tapes, coloring books, slash fiction, and crude drawings I make in the Men's Room at work.

This is unacceptable and is directly impacting my quality of life. I have set up my cellphone's ringtone to be the Law and Order "Duh-duh" in an effort to help alieve my pain, but strangely enough, nobody ever calls me.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:26 AM on November 1, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]

I like Studio60 a lot, personally - but I don't think a petition signature from across the Atlantic (where we're not meant to be seeing it for a couple of months yet) would help the cause!
posted by stumcg at 9:29 AM on November 1, 2006

BSG is pretty great too.

Let's save that instead. The campaign should be easy and we can all feel good about ourselves as we'll be successful, at least in the short term.
posted by biffa at 9:30 AM on November 1, 2006

BTW, Mark McKinney (of Kids in the Hall fame) was hired to supervise the sketch elements of the show.

He hasn't helped.
posted by mkultra at 9:31 AM on November 1, 2006

Was Studio 60 on this week? My DVR didn't pick it up, but it recorded last week's and is scheduled to record next week's show. If they skipped a week, that's the kind of bullshit that'll lose an audience.
posted by mullacc at 9:33 AM on November 1, 2006

Yeah mullacc, the Mrs. and I settled down to watch it yesterday when we found it wasn't there. They re-ran the Pilot, at least according to TV Guide, on Monday.
posted by cavalier at 9:39 AM on November 1, 2006

I've signed.

When my wife watches that dumb assed show it motivates me to get off the couch and do something with the hour (44 minutes on FF>) I have until it's over. So save it.
posted by Keith Talent at 9:43 AM on November 1, 2006

cavalier: Thanks. I don't pick up repeats on my DVR. I suppose repeating the pilot is better than nothing.
posted by mullacc at 9:44 AM on November 1, 2006

do 'smart' and 'televison' actually go together well?
____
Come on. There's plenty of smart tv. The fact that you sit on a couch to experience the medium is not a legitimate indictment of the medium. You sit on a couch to read a book, which can also be called vegging out.
____
yes, but to relax, I like to turn that fucntioning off and just go hahahahurfdurf for awhile and TV functions best for that (IMHO, YMMV, avoid direct contact with pants)

Well, I am a fan of the TV myself, but it's impossible to have "smart" TV--the medium itself prevents it. Much smarter people than I have written terrific books about this, but it's self-limiting: TV shows by design must be non-hierarchical, so that one can drop in at any point and have it make sense. That's why, even in the all-the-rage-these-days serial dramas, regular viewers endure "previously, on..." every week--or just wait for the DVDs. It's why "educational" TV is more properly called informational TV--no TV show can actually introduce basic concepts and develop them through increasing complex permutations, etc. (Like Sesame Street: it's designed so that a kid can drop in at any point in any episode and learn something. That's information, not education.)

So, yeah, I don't think that truly smart TV is possible, but, like some posters above, I don't go to TV for smart--I go to TV for pure entertainment. I enjoy clever jokes, witty dialogue (even dialogue that presumes a reasonable amount of intelligence and/or education on the part of the viewer), but none of that amounts to smart.

TV is an advertising medium. The shows on it exist only to get us to watch commercials (or to pay subscription fees). Shows don't stay on TV because they're good, or have substance, or are socially relevant or provocative, or whatever--they stay on TV if they make people watch commercials. Which is why it's misguided to save a show because it's good--if you want to save a show, help to increase its viewership. Studio 60 doesn't have enough people watching its commercials, so it looks like it's going bye-bye. Which is a shame to me, because I like it, imperfect though it is.

(I'm really not feeling ranty today, I swear!)
posted by LooseFilter at 9:49 AM on November 1, 2006

I love — I mean, absolutely love — condescension toward The West Wing coming from people who sit through Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I don't know what it is with these threads. Whether it's Studio 60, or Cold Stone Creamery, or whatever, there's this contingent of people who are firmly convinced that hating on X make them the coolest, ever. Meanwhile you plan every meetup at some tacos-and-beer dive and you TiVo some adolescent drama starring Sarah Michelle Gellar. I know it's a popular meme on the Tubes; but maybe, if you're going to insult somebody's favorite band, you could refrain from praising Eminem and preserve the illusion that you have some taste.
posted by cribcage at 9:52 AM on November 1, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

cribcage: taste is a matter of taste.
posted by jonmc at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2006

Have you heard of the concept of relativism, cribcage? It's possible to judge the success of something based on what it's trying to achieve, rather than some platonic ideal. Studio 60 is trying to single-handedly "save" television (and through television, the world). Buffy is trying to be entertaining for a little over 40 minutes an episode.
posted by mkultra at 9:58 AM on November 1, 2006

Was Studio 60 on this week?

To expand on the above answer, they ran Friday Night Lights in the timeslot, to see if it was a better match with Heroes. It got about the same numbers as Studio 60, which is either bad or good. Good because it didn't do better, bad because a random other show does just as well in the timeslot.
posted by smackfu at 9:58 AM on November 1, 2006

Biffa sez: Let's save that instead. The campaign should be easy and we can all feel good about ourselves as we'll be successful, at least in the short term.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.
posted by symphonik at 10:01 AM on November 1, 2006

Actually, it is a firefly. Don't paint it over, the first few Firefly eps (two rather than five, but few) were weak to the point where I have to warn inductees that they must finish the first DVD before they give up.

Studio 60 has the Sorkin air which you either love or hate. I can do without his fetishistic admiration for vaunted institutions, but I really feel his take on patriotism and political discourse is right on.

But yes, he can't seem to write comedy. West Wing could be funny, but more in a delightful way than the biting wit of a Mr. Show, MAD TV, or SNL.

I admire what he seems to want to do with the politics of religion on the show, but I find the application laughable in practice. That's a formula, though, I learned to appreciate in West Wing, so I planned to give it a chance.

Sadly, the post-blacklist history of some gaudy studio in LA just doesn't seem to hold up to the weekly civics lesson we've come to expect. There's just not as much there to make you care if you're not already in TV land.
posted by abulafa at 10:02 AM on November 1, 2006

It's just a television show. I mean, GET A LIFE.
posted by keswick at 10:04 AM on November 1, 2006

Anyway, leaving that aside, does Torchwood need to be saved from itself? Doctor Who with a bit of swearing and shagging or actually adult in another way?

It's that thing with Jason Isaacs & Cagney or Lacey tomorrow on BBC1 - is this a golden age for British TV? Two shows on telly in the same week that I will probably watch!
posted by biffa at 10:04 AM on November 1, 2006

They should cancel this FPP.
posted by NationalKato at 10:05 AM on November 1, 2006

matteo wrote: "and I'm still sorry they canceled Boomtown"

Couldn't agree with you more. I liked that show - the characters were interesting enough that it could have gone somewhere. The least they could have done was be up front about canceling rather than proclaiming the show was on hiatus for a while. Bastards.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:14 AM on November 1, 2006

but it's impossible to have "smart" TV--the medium itself prevents it.

This is so wrong on so many levels I dont even know where to start. Oh and these geniuses who wrote books about why it's impossible to have "smart" (whatever that means) tv- their books are in bookstores- guess why? To sell books. movies are in theatre to make money. Music is in record stores and on the radio to sell CDs or make people listen to ads or buy concert tickets.

There is no reason art and commerce can't co-exist, they always have. Composers like Beethoven were pretty much owned by their wealthy patrons [I have no idea if this is true of Beethoven actually, but certainly true of a lot of a famous classical composers]

As for "smart" TV, "Frasier" was labelled "smart" to the point where it was a cliche. It was an OK show and I enjoyed it- but it was all based around humorous misunderstandings- basically Three's Company with better clothes. "Beavis and Butthead" was a far smarter show. There's a big difference between high-toned and "smart" - there really is. Fraiser and Niles being rich and talking about classical music (debatably) makes them smart- but it doesn't make the show smart. Just because a show chooses to deal with politics and "issues" doesn't make it "smart." Politics can be dealt with in a smart way or a dumb way, and I havent seen Studio 60, but by all repotrs, it deals with these topics in a ham-fisted, humorless, and borderline-unwatchable way.

(Check out The Wire on HBO if you want to see great art on TV.)
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:14 AM on November 1, 2006

But yes, he can't seem to write comedy. West Wing could be funny, but more in a delightful way than the biting wit of a Mr. Show, MAD TV, or SNL.

I liked to think about it in a "liberal porn" kind of way. As in "would I really go in for an ass-wax? no, not so much, but the pretty pictures are nice to look at!"

West Wing could be funny, yes (God knows I've sat through enough episodes with my boyfriend to know), but its sole purpose, in my opinion, was to give us libruls a convenient TV fantasy life until Bushco was back out of office. Again, if you're into that, fine. But was it "appointment television" for me? No.

Besides, cribcage, even if the whole teen-angst thing isn't up your alley, you have to admit Joss Whedon writes funnier dialogue.

I'm a knitting designer/author (no, really). You can keep Buffy DVDs on as background noise and even though you've heard them a thousand times, you'll almost always catch another new joke or amusing phrase you didn't notice the first time around. That's why I like Whedon better. Sorkin's stuff just plods along sometimes, and I can't imagine ever watching an episode more than once.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 10:16 AM on November 1, 2006

As in "would I really go in for an ass-wax? no, not so much, but the pretty pictures are nice to look at!"

pictures of the waxed asses? or of the waxing of the asses? or is there simply good art on the walls of the asswaxing parlor?
posted by jonmc at 10:23 AM on November 1, 2006

Oh yes, West Wing was definitely "librul porn" and Studio 60 doesn't have that same cred (or subject matter). It's more like "Backstage TV Porn" which just isn't as... warm.
posted by abulafa at 10:31 AM on November 1, 2006

A comment in a newgroup (misc.writing.screenplays.moderated) by someone in the industry noted that Sorkin had an incredible play or pay deal. So there may be a few more episodes.
posted by sammyo at 10:32 AM on November 1, 2006

It's just a television show. I mean, GET A LIFE.
posted by keswick at 1:04 PM EST on November 1
[+]

You read 60+ posts about a television show you're not interested in in order to tell us to get a life?

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WITHOUT A LIFE!!!
posted by bondcliff at 10:40 AM on November 1, 2006

Ah, yes, jonmc, do please allow me to clarify:

You see, in the regular kind of porn -- that is, not librul porn, like the West Wing -- many of the "actors" feature body modifications not generally endured by ordinary citizens. Like asswaxing, for example, or bleaching. So, while their kind of porn is fun to look at as an average consumer, the likelihood of getting one's own waxing is unlikely.

In that same way, the West Wing was pleasant enough, concept-wise (hurrah! wise Democratic president with strong wife-character!) but an abject failure in terms of luring me to endure my own asswaxing by actually LIKING it.

There, did I ruin the whole metaphor with overexplaining? ;)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2006

If you want to keep a television show on the air, I have a sure-fire means.

Sue it.

Sue the Bejesus out of it. Sue it for being racist. Sue it for being sexist. Threaten to boycott its parent network. Protest it in the streets. Make threatening phone calls to the producers. Write letters to the FCC and Congress demanding it be censored.

My theory being that network executives are willing to cancel a moderate failure, but not a colossal failure. If a project is in the red by a couple million, they can cancel it without so much as a second glance from the board of directors. However, if a project is hemmoraging tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, then jobs, not to mention legacies and reputations, begin being threatened.

And don't neglect the whole "There's no such thing as bad publicity" angle.

No, in retrospect, this is the strategy we Arrested Development fans should have adopted. Instead of writing letters demanding it be kept on the air, write letters that demand it be cancelled. Not only would it have been more effective, but it also would have been more ironic and fun.
posted by _aa_ at 10:42 AM on November 1, 2006

Studio 60 sucks a dog's ass. Seriously, I liked Sports Night, and while I never got into The West Wing I could sure as hell see it was good TV.

The last episode of Studio 60 - "The Wrap Party" - was the most unintentionally hilarious hours of TV I have ever seen. What a joke. Let's see there was the parents-don't-understand-me thread (WHO THE HELL HAS NOT HEARD OF "WHO'S ON FIRST?" TELL ME MR. SORKIN? I DESERVE AN ANSWER) which culminated in such a bizarre non-sequitur about the war it left me dumbfounded -- thank you for noticing mkultra. Then there was the am-I-racially-sensitive plot thread, which traded in more stupid racial stereotypes than it hoped to debunk. And then there was the crazy-old-blacklisted-commie thread. Blacklisted! After one sketch! Oh the humanity! He was a commie and a WWII veteran! My head is exploding at the contradiction!

Adding insult to injury, the whole thing is so solipsistic it had to collapse under the weight of Sorkin's failed lovelife and score settling.

On the plus side, Sting's appearence resulted in the funniest blog headline I have seen in a while "Oh Sting, Where Is Thy Death?"
posted by Heminator at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Check out The Wire on HBO if you want to see great art on TV

Fuck yeah. Anyone talking shit about television as a medium should really watch The Wire first, and then they can shut up forever.

That show defines "smart tv", and HBO was smart enough to pick up season 5 after one episode of season 4 aired.

Studio 60 is a weak, egomaniacal jerkoff in comparison. Put it out of its misery so that all of these great cast members can get jobs elsewhere that aren't complete wastes of their talent and ability.

I have watched every episode of Studio 60 out of some demented loyalty to Sorkin (I quit watching The West Wing after he quit writing it), but this show is really, really terrible. Cancel it, so I don't have to watch Sarah Paulson and Matthew Perry trying to make love out of nothing at all.
posted by mckenney at 10:53 AM on November 1, 2006

TV shows by design must be non-hierarchical, so that one can drop in at any point and have it make sense

So you've not seen The Wire then?

I love Studio 60 - one of the best TV dramas in years, in my not even slightly humble opinion. The fact that Studio 60 can get binned whilst utter shit like Ugly Betty continues is basically criminal.
posted by influx at 10:54 AM on November 1, 2006

Y'know what else I like? Rescue Me. And not just because Denis Leary is utterly hot in a Boston Irish kinda way and I want to bear his (cigarette-smoking) children.

(First one to post a "Leary sucks, Bill Hicks rules!" comment wins!)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 10:56 AM on November 1, 2006

I know it's a popular meme on the Tubes; but maybe, if you're going to insult somebody's favorite band, you could refrain from praising Eminem and preserve the illusion that you have some taste.

I want to have your babies.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:59 AM on November 1, 2006

I still really like the King Of Queens.

;>
posted by jonmc at 11:05 AM on November 1, 2006

It's just a television show. I mean, "GET A LIFE".
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:10 AM on November 1, 2006

It figures. Studio 60 is the first Sorkin show I've ever watched and I think it's fantastic... and now it's going to be canceled.
posted by papercake at 11:16 AM on November 1, 2006

This show was deleted for the following reason: axegrinding
posted by ninjew at 11:26 AM on November 1, 2006

I enjoy listening to the "TV is crap" rants. I'm a big movies-in-the-mail subscriber with quick rip and return turn around yet I find myself watching more and more BT'ed TV and less and less movies. Why? Because TV is getting so much better. Deadwood, The Wire, Heroes, Veronica Mars (excluding the current season which has yet to show any promise), Torchwood, BSG, Friday Night Lights, etc... It's a bountiful buffet. If you can't find something to like it isn't because it doesn't exist but because you either are not looking or you are too cool to like anything and are waiting for the TV adaptation of Joyce's Ulysses.

TV has started fighting hard over the little bit of time I can allocate to passively watched entertainment. So much to watch and so little time. Even a second tier movie used to kick Television's ass. Now I find even some Oscar contenders are not measuring up to what I can get for free on the original tube.

I like Studio 60 because I enjoy the speed talking and walking of a sorkin product but I have to admit there is nothing about it that makes me care about it. It has no hook other than the fact that the characters would be an interesting and fun bunch to meet up with at the pub for a pint.

It can stay or go. I don't care because there are plenty of other fish in the sea.
posted by srboisvert at 11:39 AM on November 1, 2006

There is no reason art and commerce can't co-exist, they always have.

Absolutely! But I wasn't talking about whether or not TV can be art, I was responding to a much more narrow categorization of the aspirations of a specific show. I think you're attacking straw men here--the reason Neal Postman wrote a book about television is that, given the depth, complexity, and detail of his arguments, a book is the proper medium in which to present them (because a book allows for arguments of depth and complexity, unlike TV).

But this is all a derail, so I'm not sure it's prudent to follow this line of thought: the more salient point I was making is that TV, moreso than other industries, doesn't really care if shows are good or not, only whether or not they generate advertising revenue, which is determined by viewership. Conveniently, a recent sub-plot on Studio 60 served this up nicely (Jordan's fight for her UN-based show). In fact, to me, the whole show is, to a great degree, about Sorkin's frustration that he works in a medium that just doesn't care if his show is actually good--only whether or not it attracts viewers. That's art in conflict with commerce.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:42 AM on November 1, 2006

Studio 60 is trying to single-handedly "save" television (and through television, the world).

Says who? "Friday Night Lights" is the show that NBC is positing with the most pretentious and hamfisted ad campaign in history, talking about how it will connect viewers to their humanity and remind them "who (they) are." Sorkin may be a blowhard -- and a transparent one, at that -- but he's keeping a typically low profile where the show is concerned. He's not doing media, he's not out talking up the show at every turn.

And it's not the network either, which is, if anything, NBC is criminally underrepresenting what Studio 60 is. (While also giving horrifically short shrift to the majority of the watchable shows (other than Law & Order flavors) they have -- whither Medium or Crossing Jordan these days?) If they're already talking about yanking the show off the schedule, four shows in, when we're talking about a series which a huge cast and backstory that has only begun to be revealed, it's to their detriment -- and the audience's.

But I guess America needs another hour of 1 vs. 100 or The Biggest Loser. Cheap, easy, brainless. Classic American programming.
posted by Dreama at 11:52 AM on November 1, 2006

I liked Studio 60 for a while, but I agree with Heminator, that last episode was nine kinds of bad. If I knew then what I know now, I'd go back in time and watch a bad sitcom rerun instead.

Also, I agree with drjimmy11 that a show needs more than quick banter and big words for it to truly be "smart".
posted by Sprout the Vulgarian at 11:53 AM on November 1, 2006

Cheap Seats is worth saving far more than Studio 60.
posted by Remy at 11:56 AM on November 1, 2006

Studio 60 pushes The Sorkin Button, which is about all I need out of it. That it's never really engaged me the way Sorkin's other, better work has... I'm willing to give it time, but given how expensive the show is, and how the ratings have been sliding, I'm not surprised NBC isn't quite so willing. It's not yet been bad, exactly, but it's certainly not at the level of quality achieved by much of Sorkin's earlier work.

PS: Studio 60 is nowhere near as good as any of the other shows mentioned in the FPP. Those are all classics.

PPS: For Studio 60 to really work, we need Sports Night-Sorkin back. You know, the one who could write material that had a light touch. Subtlety. Not Capt. Smarmy Sledgehammer, the guy currently writing S60.
posted by sparkletone at 11:59 AM on November 1, 2006

PPPS: If you want to campaign for a show worth saving, go help out Veronica Mars.

PPPPS: BSG is currently the best show on television, and anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't watched it.
posted by sparkletone at 12:00 PM on November 1, 2006

Of course "smart TV" is not an oxymoron. If you're going to dump on TV as a whole, you'd have to say that it was impossible to have quality in any of the popular arts - music, film - too.

For me the difference between good and bad fiction writing at its basic level comes down to whether the characters feel "real." This can be accomplished even in a most absurdist style - there is still some elemental truth about the characters that will draw me in. But the characters on this show don't feel real.

And it is because Sorkin is cannibalizing his personal experiences in a very heavy-handed way. That's what really bad writers do - just crank out thinly veiled versions of their own life. Which ends up striking a less than authentic note.

Now for a show whose characters do pull you into their world
-- I'm watching the Bravo reruns of "Six Feet Under."
posted by NorthernLite at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2006

Crossing Jordan is a watchable show, if by watchable you mean a complete waste of perfectly good Jill Hennessey.

I would give my eye teeth for a L&O spinoff featuring Claire Kincaid's reanimated corpse.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:14 PM on November 1, 2006

I want to love Studio 60 but just can't get past all the self-referential masturbation and total lack of comedy. Perry and Whitford are doing a phenomenal job and the rest of the cast is great, but the show is so self-congratulatory and unfunny.

AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE, EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT "WHO'S ON FIRST" IS!

Firefly broke my heart. When the revolution comes, the exec at Fox that made the decision to cancel shall be the first one up against the wall. Whedon, why hast thou foresaken us?
posted by Ber at 12:14 PM on November 1, 2006

I've exlained this in a thousand different forums, but not here, so here goes.

The sketches on Stgudio 60 will never be funny. They can't be. You could have Monty Python or a room full of passed-out gorillas writing them and we still wouldn't laugh, because we're not watching the sketches, we're watching the people watch and make the sketches in the course of what is otherwise a drama. Take the funniest thing ever on film, like A Fish Called Wanda or whatever, and then film people talking about serious matters while that's on in the background. It wouldn't be funny. The suspension of disbelief only carries so far, and can't move to Show-Within-A-Show. When we are actively believing in the reality the show presents us with (i.e. that our characters are making another show) that precludes us from actively believing in the sketches they are acting out. And because sketches are based in situational comedy rather than jokes, the comedy can't be funny without the suspension of disbelief. The only segment that actually can be funny is "News 60," because it is joke-based, and that gets funnier everytime we see it. As for the sketches, just accept that you aren't going to laugh at them and that they're simply background to the drama anyway.

The problem with Studio 60 is in it's expectations. It was marketed before it ever came out as being the show that would save television (as if Lost and Battlestar Galactica weren't already doing that, and like Freaks and Geeks and Arrested Development hadn't already died for the cause.) Moreover, the show made a HUGE mistake by reflecting this in it's main storyline. Sports Night is still adored by many, including me, because it was an underdog from the start, as was the show-within-a-show, which was constantly struggling for each ratings-share-point it could get. In Studio 60, unfortunately, Matt and Danny immediately save the show, and take the legs out from under the inherent drama of working in television. And when you're struggling for ratings, you have much less time and energy to be preaching about higher issues that we don't care about as much.

All of this is fixable, and I imagine that Sorkin and Schlamme are, in fact, fixing it. All shows have trouble right out the gate, and this one is far better than most, but here we get people watching who either A) expected it to be prefect immediately, B) don't understand that these episodes take months to produce and thus that the creators can't retool week-to-week, or C) just want to see it fail because they're shitty like that. That would explain to me the many people who keep calling for it's cancellation, but apparently watch every episode anyway.

So yeah. Fuck the haters. This is a good show that will be great if given the time to work it's shit out. To say that it can't, after seeing only six episodes that were all completed before the first one even aired, strikes me as more than a little bit ignorant.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:15 PM on November 1, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

TV shows by design must be non-hierarchical, so that one can drop in at any point and have it make sense


This is just plain ridiculous. You probably meant to say TV series. The medium of tv is not limited to fictional shows that serialize. PLENTY of programming is centered on documentaries, one subject explorations of nature, specials focused on an event or several events in history, musical performances, live coverage, news analysis, talk, etc, etc etc. Let's not confuse what the major networks broadcast every night during prime time with the medium of TV. You are not going to indict all of fine art because you don't like Damien Hurst cutting up cows.

Besides, TV doesn't only exist in America you know. There are plenty of shows that were on the BBC that didn't give a rat's ass if you were new and had no idea what was going on: Absolutely Fabulous, Fawlty Towers, The Office. These were smart shows none the less and just because American producers may try to dumb down what they are doing is again NOT AN INDICTMENT OF THE MEDIA. Anything made for generic mass consumption, regardless of the medium chosen, is going to tend toward stupid.
posted by spicynuts at 12:26 PM on November 1, 2006

Studio 60 was born in the most outrageous piece of plagarism. A sideways acknowledgement ('they're talking about Paddy Chayefsky, that's a start') makes it OK? Not sure about that. We then get a whole episode about ripping off other people's ideas and, guess what, everything ends honorably. Ahem.

Sad to see it go, but there is something not right. Slate nails it.
posted by grahamwell at 12:29 PM on November 1, 2006

I think I agree with everyone. I know I only watched the show because I hated it. It was a study in Sorkin making a charicature of himself.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the other show-within-a-show on Studio 60 (Nations) is the new Sorkin project? Maybe Josh Lyman and Eliot Weston could be in that, too.
posted by frecklefaerie at 12:34 PM on November 1, 2006

I didn't like Studio 60 the couple of times I watched it and don't care if it gets cancelled. But the first season of Seinfeld is torture, and only became a huge hit after several years.

I guess that's the new system of offering huge initial production budgets and expecting immediate returns. But lots of great shows are going to get lost in that system. Seinfeld never would've made it past the first few episodes.
posted by blefr at 1:25 PM on November 1, 2006

As long as they keep 30 Rock I'll be happy.

30 Rock is a surprisingly good show. Studio 60 is unsurprisingly ununtertaining. IMO, natch.

And, y'know, it's almost a cliche by now, but I just don't get too attached to TV series anymore. It is wise to assume that the lowest common denominator will survive and quality shows will end up on the phosphorescent ashheap of history.

Seeing Firefly, Dead Like Me and Carnivale get prematurely canceled and Desperate Housewives, American Idol and The O.C. thrive only reinforces my belief that quality is no longer a desired characteristic desired of consumer products by the average person. "Fast, good, cheap -- pick two," the old saw goes. Everyone wants fast and cheap...and lousy or stupid would be a bonus.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:38 PM on November 1, 2006

"Studio 60" sucks rocks but I'll keep watching it 'til they cancel it. I haven't enjoyed snarking about a show so much since the unbelievably bad "Roswell" (1999-2002).
posted by kjh at 1:46 PM on November 1, 2006

As long as they keep 30 Rock I'll be happy.

30 Rock is a surprisingly good show. Studio 60 is unsurprisingly ununtertaining. IMO, natch.

Amen to that. 30 Rock is twice as entertaining in half the time, and I suspect a more accurate portrayal of being behind the scenes of a sketch comedy. It even made me like Tracy Morgan and feel slightly less bummed out that Arrested Development went off the air.
posted by mkultra at 1:54 PM on November 1, 2006

"I still really like the King Of Queens."

What's not to like - funny cast, sharp writing and Leah Remini is freakin hot. Until she porked out.
posted by vronsky at 2:01 PM on November 1, 2006

Loved Sports Night, really enjoyed West Wing (at least up to the terrible post-9/11 episode that Sorkin personally vomited up), am hating Studio 60.

Cancel that mutha.
posted by ericbop at 2:03 PM on November 1, 2006

It even made me like Tracy Morgan

Yes, yes, yes! I could barely stand him in his previous work and think he's hounding the heels of brilliance with this role.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2006

If you're going to dump on TV as a whole, you'd have to say that it was impossible to have quality in any of the popular arts - music, film - too.

No, I wouldn't--the difference is in the medium itself. Music and film are completely different media, and different strengths and weaknesses and expressive possibilities are inherent in each. One can go places in other media that are precluded by the nature of television. (Though subscription TV, like HBO, appears to be creating a new paradigm in that medium.) I'm not "dumping on TV"--I'm simply pointing out limitations inherent in the medium.
___________

This is just plain ridiculous. You probably meant to say TV series.

Nope, I meant TV itself--I'm surprised my point is being widely missed. I'll assume I'm being unclear and let Dr. Postman (whose book I linked to earlier) speak for me on this:

Of course, to say that television is entertaining is merely banal . . . what I am claiming here is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience. Our television set keeps us in constant communion with the world, but it does so with a face whose smiling countenance is unalterable. The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining, which is another issue all together.

From Wikipedia:

Postman asserted that by its very nature, television confounds serious issues with entertainment, demeaning and undermining political discourse by making it less about ideas and more about image. He also argues that television is not an effective way of providing education, as it provides only passive information transfer, rather than the interaction that he believes is necessary to maximize learning.

Again, I highly recommend this book. I am an artist myself (musician), and Postman's writing (among others, but he was my starting point) brought a profound change in perspective for me, and taught me to consider the medium itself. (Marshall McLuhan is the grandfather of this branch of thought, if you want to go straight to the source, but Postman extended some of his work in very important ways.)

Much of the dramatic action in Studio 60, I think, comes from Sorkin's frustration that he isn't able to transcend the boundaries and limitations of his medium. And it's made the show uneven so far.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:24 PM on November 1, 2006

sigh. studio 60 is ... one of the best shows on tv today. i feel like you either love it or hate it, and unforunately the haters are out numbering the lovers :(
posted by virga at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2006

this show has underwhelmed me each time I've tried to watch.
I understand (I think) it's objective, and there are good moments, but in total, the thing feels a mess to me. It's like rapid dialogue is supposed to imply great things.

it's no BSG, that's for sure.
posted by Busithoth at 2:30 PM on November 1, 2006

the haters are out numbering the lovers

Run lovers, lest the haters number you!

P.S. I'm still despondent over the loss of Firefly.
posted by Tubes at 2:35 PM on November 1, 2006

I love Studio 60. It would be a damn shame if they cancel it.

It's not the best show. It's not reinventing television. But it's a damn fine hour, much better than most, and it deserves to be on the air.
posted by JWright at 2:38 PM on November 1, 2006

But, yeah, I'd trade it in a second if we could have Firefly back.
posted by JWright at 2:39 PM on November 1, 2006

Jumped the shark: Parents unable to take pride in their son's success on an important sketch comedy show because they were born on another planet and therefore have no knowledge of who Abbott and Costello were. Three other subplots almost as heavy-handed ludicrous.
posted by TimTypeZed at 2:46 PM on November 1, 2006

Max Headroom. Now there was a show.
posted by bardic at 2:52 PM on November 1, 2006

I'm a huge Sorkin fan -- love Sports Night, love the West Wing. I don't love Studio 60, I see plenty of flaws, but I still hope they don't cancel it.

Because a mediocre Sorkin script is still twice as good as any other program on TV.

Except Project Runway. Tim Gunn is the MAN!
posted by o2b at 2:57 PM on November 1, 2006

I was an avid fan of the West Wing and watched the show religiously until Sorkin stopped writing for it. The quality dropped off precipitously thereafter, and I couldn't force myself to get through the later episodes. His writing made the show what it was.

While I've seen every episode of Studio 60 that has aired so far, none of them have begun to approach even an average episode of the West Wing of the Sorkin era. One of the common criticisms of the show is that it's preachy and self-important. The West Wing can rightly be subjected to the same criticisms, as it certainly indulged in high-brow rhetoric and themes - however, that show managed to pull it off with flying colors. Studio 60 has failed abjectly in that regard.

My main problem with the show is that it feels incredibly artificial and fails to create even a pretense of a realistic atmosphere. There is absolutely no sense that the cast members have any connection to one another, and their conversations, casual exchanges, and attempts at romance continously highlight this failure. In contrast, think about the dynamics of the West Wing staff - the interactions between Josh and Donna; between Leo and the rest of the staff; between CJ Cregg and Danny (or CJ and her father!); between President Bartlett and Abigail; between Sam and Toby, and so forth. Those were all distinct, interesting, and utterly engaging characters that interacted in ways that may not have always been realistic but were damn exciting to watch. Watching the cast of Studio 60 interact with one another is like watching a bunch of extras doing a live read in the real cast's absence so that the audio guys can get the volume levels right. It's just all so hollow.

(Oh, and let's not even talk about the "comedy" of the show. My God.)
posted by Pontius Pilate at 2:59 PM on November 1, 2006

Sorkin is way off base a lot of the time, but even so, the writing is fluid, witty, fast and smart. He does great casting, too. I have plenty of details to quibble with on Studio 60, but I still like watching it. Like House, which is implausible to the extreme, but Hugh Laurie is incredibly talented, so who cares.

30 Rock is slow and cumbersome, but at least has Tina Fey and her TinaFey glasses. It's so weird that both shows are on NBC. Self-referentially self-referential.

Maybe the 2 shows could somehow be combined. Or maybe Studio 60 could go to HBO.
posted by theora55 at 3:10 PM on November 1, 2006

I think NBC has sunk too much money and credibility into S60 to just kill it so fast. As others have pointed out, Heroes makes a terrible lead-in to it -- the audiences are very different. (BTW, S60 was originally slotted to go up against CSI on Thursday night, but when ABC moved Grey's Anatomy into the same period, NBC realized that wouldn't work.) The network will likely try another time slot or two, and maybe Sorkin and friends can tinker and make things better. Good TV shows rarely emerge fully formed from the get-go. High expectations don't help.

I think Sorkin hated net chatter about him and his show back in West Wing days ... he can't be enjoying all the talk about S60.

I've watched them all, but yes, it needs to be less self-important. That can work when the show is about the occupant of the White House, but a comedy TV show? Um, no. Please stop telling me how great Harriet is, because I don't see it. Less Jordan, please; nobody cares about a network suit (maybe Alec Baldwin excepted, ahem). And yes, I don't buy that anyone in those parents' age group has never heard of "Who's on First."
posted by pmurray63 at 3:24 PM on November 1, 2006

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is that this show is costing NBC ridiculous amounts of money to put on the air (I've read several million dollars per episode). And given that NBC is apparently in dire financial straits, I wouldn't fault them for pulling the plug. There are some shows that deserve a chance to find an audience and grow, but keeping a low-performing show around when it costs 3 mil an episode? That's asking a lot.

Personally, I don't care what NBC does, as long as they keep The Office on the air.
posted by brookedel at 3:26 PM on November 1, 2006

In Canada "CJOH" is a CTV affiliate.
posted by furtive at 3:37 PM on November 1, 2006

I'm conflicted about S60. Like many other Mefites, I'm far too hip to be caught dead watching that pedestrian opiate edifice (orifice?) that is TV. I only watch black-and-white foreign films that are delivered straight to my door by unwed hunchback mice wearing berets and black turtlenecks.

Wait, no I'm confused again. I hate TV. I hate having my viewing interrupted by commercials, I hate that I can't get the BBC without paying outrageous amounts of money to my bullies/cable company. I hate that 90% of advertising on TV is for OTHER TV SHOWS and I absolutely loathe most of the swill that gets pushed on those poor unfortunate souls that suffer through it.

Fortunately, I have bittorrent. And tvrss.net. I got the last two episodes of S60 delivered to my downloads directory before I knew the show had aired, in fact before it had aired in my market. I get Mythbusters the same way. And Top Gear and Dr. Who. And occasionally whatever other british brilliance finds its way onto a tracker somewhere.

Between BT and NetFlix, I have no need to pander to that disgusting bile sac that is network television, much less the putrid, pus filled remains of an aborted bad idea that most cable television amounts to. Hence, since I am freeloading by not subjecting myself to advertisers, I am killing network television. And probaly cable too. Satellite if I'm lucky. I only wish I were in Reno so I could properly watch it die.

Oh that's right, we were talking about Studio 60. You know what, I don't really care. I like fast-talking and I like not-Josh and not-Chandler and not-Danny. The rest of the cast could all be replaced by dancing hamsters, I'd still watch it. Actually that might be an improvement. I hope they don't cancel it.

Also, Arrested Development sucks. And I mean sucks. I mean it could fall down a nipple mountain into a nipple ocean and wind up with its thumb in its mouth. I'm talking Bucket'o'Dicks suckage here people. Supernovae through pipettes. Really.
posted by Skorgu at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Ber : When the revolution comes, the exec at Fox that made the decision to cancel shall be the first one up against the wall.

I'm right there with you and my gun is loaded. I was convinced that Farscape was the best Sci-Fi show ever made and mourned it's loss. Then I saw Firefly, and I was proven wrong. I had hopped that BSD would prove me wrong again, and in some ways it has, but the key difference, is that while I love Battlestar, I have absolutely no interest in rewatching the episodes. Firefly on the other hand, I've seen every episode multiple times and know most of it by heart.

Battlestar relies on gut wrenching stress to make it's impact and It does this very well. But once you've experienced it, rewatching will provide you with the same high. Firefly is better in this regard; the character interactions and the pithy dialog all serve to make the show entertaining on first or fifth viewing. YMMV though.
posted by quin at 3:57 PM on November 1, 2006

Yea, I loooooved Sorkin West Wing, but Studio 60 is bizarrely bad. Like someone said about, people who haven't heard of Who's On First? Please. And I, too, am sick of the show being used as his laundry line; it's juicy gossip but not interesting TV. Bye bye, S60.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:02 PM on November 1, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Skorgu... um... you're going to have to explain that Arrested Development hate a little more than just describing the level of hatred itself. It's like Robert McKee wrote (paraphrasing) "If you say that Citizen Kane is a bad movie, we can go round and round for hours over symbolism and technique and storytelling strategies, but if you say that A Fish Called Wanda isn't funny, I'll shake my head and feel sorry for you. In comedy, laughter settles all arguments." Arrested Development is arguably the funniest live-action show ever created, and certainly the most brilliant, iwht it's back-and-forth manic timelines, clockwork storylines that never telegraph their conclusions, and the sheer ballsiness of setting up jokes that don't pay their punchlines until several episodes, or seasons, later.

Again, I recognize the problems of Studio 60 as much as anyone, and again, the biggest problem with it is that the characters don't really have anything to do yet. If I can trust anyone to fix that (provided that he recognizes it) it's Aaron Sorkin, but right now, we have to sit through the first few minutes of each show to try to figure out what we should hang our cares around. Sports Night and The West Wing could hit the ground running with every episode, because the characters in them were always under the gun in one way or another, and also didn't take themselves nearly as seriously. Sorkin has done it twice before, he can do it again.

And yes, BSG is the best show on television, and I'm a self-affirmed hater of most things Sci-Fi. So if you're not watching it, you're a fool. But it also took it's style whole-sale from WW, so you've gotta give Sorkin (and Schlamme) credit at least for that.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:23 PM on November 1, 2006

I'll bite, biffa. Torchwood shows some good promise, even leaving out the "insert shagging & language to show it's an adult show". Take the last one - Owen, already established as a bit of a lad, gets that aspect whacked on the head by experiencing the other side of the coin. As long as they don't immediately revert him to his previous personality, I'll be suitably impressed.

(Not that I'm supposed to have seen it yet or anything - thank you, ABC...)

I'll agree that BSG is some of the best TV on at the moment. And that's from somebody who thought the mini-series was just OK, and the first series never rose above recycled average...
posted by Pinback at 4:26 PM on November 1, 2006

I think Sorkin hated net chatter about him and his show back in West Wing days ... he can't be enjoying all the talk about S60.

This is a funny story. ...and I was going to write it all out, but in the process of researching, found a blog post that had it all done for me!

The long back story of Aaron Sorkin, West Wing, Televisionwithoutpity and the "U.S. Poet Laureate" episode
posted by kjh at 4:30 PM on November 1, 2006

Navelgazer I'll have to do no such thing. It sucks. Now I'll grant that the sum total of my viewing is approximately three minutes, but that was far more than enough for me to firmly blacklist that man from any consensual viewing, ever. It may be brilliantly directed, written, acted, and cast but I don't give a shit. If that man (whose name I have no desire, whatsoever to know) were in A Fish Called Wanda, it would not have been funny. Had that man given the most heart-wrenching performance of Romeo or Othello or The Scot, it would not have been dramatic. I would rather watch a Vin Diesel one man presentation of the best of Reality TV, guest starring Vin Diesel as Himself than see two pixels of that man's little toe. I hated Seinfeld too.

Hmm, more than two minutes. Must do better next time.
posted by Skorgu at 4:32 PM on November 1, 2006

Goddamit, I'm an idiot. I didn't mean Arrested Development at all. I meant Curb Your Enthusiasm. I have no excuse.

*hangs head in shame*
posted by Skorgu at 4:34 PM on November 1, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

No, I wouldn't--the difference is in the medium itself.

Bullshit. It's a series of pictures in sequence, with accompanying sound. There's nothing inherently dumb about a series of pictures in sequence.

Postman asserted that by its very nature, television confounds serious issues with entertainment

Bullshit again. Television shows you a moving picture; the viewer decides whether it's entertainment and/or serious. Saying that television is less suitable for serious purposes because it is also used for entertainment is like saying that books are unsuitable for serious purposes because there are too many novels about cat detectives.

Sure, maybe there are people who confound serious issues they see on TV with entertainment. And perhaps it is currently used more often for entertainment. But that's got nothing to do with the medium; that's just how people are choosing to use it.

Now, you can go ahead and redefine "medium" to mean "the physical characteristics plus the currently fashionable usage patterns", but then your estimates of the "mediums" of film and books should include Hollywood, Bollywood, Tom Clancy, Danielle Steel...
posted by equalpants at 4:42 PM on November 1, 2006

I didn't mean Arrested Development at all. I meant Curb Your Enthusiasm. I have no excuse.

Suddenly statements which previously did not parse as valid English at least make some sort of sense.
posted by sparkletone at 5:02 PM on November 1, 2006

1. saying that battlestar galactica took its style wholesale from west wing is like saying that Arrested Development takes its style wholesale from Just Shoot Me. You're completely ignoring the decades of good tv work that both shows come from, and you're also completely ignoring the mountains of difference between the two programs to focus on some particular characteristic they share.

2. Of all the shows that would merit some populist movement to be saved from cancellation, studio 60 is well outranked by many others, a number of which have already been mentioned. *cough*deadwood*cough*

to quote marshall maccluhan, whose name i have likely just misspelled:

Life sucks, and so does your favorite tv show.
posted by shmegegge at 5:38 PM on November 1, 2006

I liked the first episode of Studio 60 and think much of the writing is quality (I watched the first six episodes). However, the "funny" sketches on the show are almost uniformly terrible: they're not clever or funny in the least. In fact, they pretty much resemble all of the trash railed against valiantly in the cold opening of the first episode. This, unfortunately, makes all the characters on the show look like morons, since they continually congratulate each other on just how funny these wildly unfunny segments are.

It's too bad, really. It had promise. It could have been an interesting look at the politics of television, but instead it got bogged down in awkward implementation. I've never understood what the purpose of even showing the sketches was; they're irrelevant to the characters and show itself. What's interesting is watching Matt and Danny try to create the show--not what they've created.

Similarly, there's no need to see any of the actual results in The West Wing. We don't need to see a war if they decide to go to war, or the implementation of a medicare program if they implement one, or whatever. The show's central intrigue was the why and the how of what happened. I'm not sure why Sorkin forgot this when he wrote Studio 60, but he did.

Clumsy.

Oh, and musical guests on a one-hour drama are a big no, especially when everyone is gushing over Sting, of all things. Boooooo-ring.
posted by The God Complex at 5:40 PM on November 1, 2006

and I'm still sorry they canceled Boomtown

I enjoyed that show, too, matteo.
posted by The God Complex at 5:42 PM on November 1, 2006

Oh, and Carnivale and Deadwood were/are my two favourite HBO series (I like them both more than Six Feet Under or The Sopranos). Oh well.
posted by The God Complex at 5:53 PM on November 1, 2006

Rome trumps all other HBO programming, ever.
write letters, the show's still doomed.
I sure as shit know there's stuff to enjoy in repeated watchings of deadwood and Rome, whereas I cannot force myself to watch a studio 60 episode through twice.
I doubt anyone could.
posted by Busithoth at 6:40 PM on November 1, 2006

Television shows you a moving picture

That's my point exactly. Pictures, moving or otherwise, are seldom the best way to advance any sort of nuanced argument or narrative--images typically have a more visceral, emotional impact and words are better suited for nuanced, rational discourse. Each medium (images vs. text, say) has limits inherent in it, and strengths as well. Would you seriously assert that there is no difference in a creator's ability to develop character in a novel as opposed to a movie? That they shouldn't be approached in fundamentally different ways?

TV is great for some things, mostly for entertainment.

(Daniel Boorstin was particulary prescient on this point in 1961.)
posted by LooseFilter at 7:05 PM on November 1, 2006

images typically have a more visceral, emotional impact and words are better suited for nuanced, rational discourse

You are conflating images and television. Television isn't just images; it also uses words. You can take any nuanced, rational book you want and convert it to television simply by having someone sit there and read it, or by showing the words on the screen. Yes, nobody does that, but there's no fundamental property of television stopping them from doing so.

Would you seriously assert that there is no difference in a creator's ability to develop character in a novel as opposed to a movie? That they shouldn't be approached in fundamentally different ways?

Of course not, which is why I didn't say that. I said that television is not less suited for "serious" purposes.
posted by equalpants at 7:24 PM on November 1, 2006

Loosefilter: Plato made the point a lot more presciently than Dan Doorstin, that actors on a stage dealt with emotions, and not arguments, and as such weren't as acceptable or worthy (I know that's not what your saying, I'm just pointing out that it's hardly a new idea.)

It's also hardly valid to claim that the only way to express a nuanced argument is through rational text. In fact, the medium of film (and television... more and more these days, television) eclipses what can be argued in all but the foremost of prose simply because of it's efficiency in giving us a thousand ideas at once. Of course, it takes a skillful craftsman (and, in fact, many many skillful craftsmen at once) to make it work to it's full potential, but the way to make it work best isn't to shit on the best craftsmen working and trying their best.

Rewatch, i dunno, The Shawshank Redemption. I like Stephen King's prose style, but even his work, if he'd written a thousand words on it, couldn't have matched what the pictures argued for the affirmation of life in those two hours. Postman is an academic trying to make a name for himself on a premise that he can't refute without perishing in his position. Ditto Boorstin. A different medium, and a different way of recieving ideas, doesn't make them weaker.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:39 PM on November 1, 2006

Having described BSG as "West Wing in Space" to tantalize my targets appropriately, I think the comparison is apt and fair. Does that mean it is merely that and nothing more? Not at all.

Skagu -- I'm right with you in the Larry David Shits Shit So Stop Pretending It's Gold camp.

Arrested Development just never clicked with me. It always seemed to have a backdrop of mean-spiritedness I couldn't get off my clothes when it was over with.
posted by abulafa at 7:44 PM on November 1, 2006

Television isn't just images; it also uses words.

That's facile: television is clearly, dominately a visual medium.

A different medium, and a different way of recieving ideas, doesn't make them weaker.

I completely agree--I don't think that I ever asserted that television is somehow inferior to other media, simply that it has limits inherent in it, as all media do, and that some media are better at doing specific things than others. (My sense is that several of the replies to my initial point were projecting rather than responding to what I actually wrote. I like TV, and think that it's better now than it has been in a long time.)

I do, however, stick by my original point that television is a poor choice of medium for developing any kind of discourse or educational process--anything that is hierarchical in nature, where each successive point is built upon a previous one (which I would call 'smart'). Could television be made to be hierarchical, ideally? Perhaps. But the way that it exists, and has existed in the U.S. since its inception, precludes this.

I made the observation in the context of Studio 60: I think that show is about the struggle of an artist (Sorkin) against the limitations and frustrations of his medium--some of those limitations come with the medium, some come from the industry that dominates that medium--but they are struggles nonetheless. If Sorkin wants to create "smart" anything, I don't think that TV is the best place to try and do that.

It's also hardly valid to claim that the only way to express a nuanced argument is through rational text.

I didn't claim that.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:06 PM on November 1, 2006

I'm going to say it. I don't care.

I liked sports night. I coudln't sit through an episode of West Wing.

I will be very vexed if they cancel this show.

It's smart, clever, funny....

And I wish more TV was like this.
posted by filmgeek at 10:12 PM on November 1, 2006

I loved Sports Night. It was hilarious, fast-paced, and you certainly didn't have to be a sports fan to enjoy the series.

Following, West Wing was great too. Sorkin didn't dumb-down his dialogue, the issues discussed were serious stuff mostly faced by the Clinton administration, yet it was also funny and entertaining.

Now there's Studio 60. I certainly catch every episode without fail, and it certainly is better television than a lot of the reality tv crap out there, but part of me supports cancelling the show. It's a total letdown. Self-glorifying without the matching self-deprecating humour to match it.

My only regret would be the loss of Perry and Whitford if Studio 60 were to end. Their acting and chemistry has been the series' sole saving grace.
posted by slf at 10:41 PM on November 1, 2006

Well, I have to admit the sub-plot about the blacklisted writer (although the war hero part was a bit thick, mind you) really appealed to me, as HUAC has always been a pet bit of history...

As far as TV, I really don't watch it. I work nights, so I miss virtually all bits, and BT the bits I do care about (although I really so should have set up RSS in my client by now - BAD GEEK!), so I really don't have anything to compare to...
posted by Samizdata at 11:53 PM on November 1, 2006

Okay, yes, I like it, and I don't like the fact it's getting ganked. First season shows generally have a problem finding their identity, and apparently this isn't even going to get a season of self-exploration...
posted by Samizdata at 11:54 PM on November 1, 2006

But... Studio 60 sucks ass.

It's just West Wing in a Tv Studio. Not funny. NOT even interesting.
posted by Dome-O-Rama at 1:26 AM on November 2, 2006

But... There's something you are missing ... THOSE were on FOX. THIS is on NBC. BIG DIFFERENCE.

FOX kills things after two episodes.

NBC barely touches things in the same season.They tend to give things time, maybe too much time in some cases.

Now not saying it shouldn't be canceled... Studio 60 sucks ass.

It's just West Wing (which I hated) in a TV Studio. It's Not funny. It's NOT even interesting.
posted by Dome-O-Rama at 1:30 AM on November 2, 2006

I do, however, stick by my original point that television is a poor choice of medium for developing any kind of discourse or educational process

I think that's a failure of imagination, not of the medium. Anything you can do in a lecture hall, you can also do on television. Sure, books have some comparative advantages: readers control their own pace and schedule, and repeating things is slightly easier. But television also has advantages: audience participation, use of visual aids.

There are real-life examples, too: C-SPAN is a fantastic boon to political discourse; much better than the previous alternatives of reading the Congressional Record or traveling to DC to watch. Lots of people have learned to paint, cook, use a computer, play the guitar, etc. from instructional shows on public TV. (Hell, I once saw a program explaining the rules for naming hydrocarbons on late-night TV.)

I agree that if you divide what's on TV into "smart" and "entertaining", most stuff winds up being "entertaining". But that's not due to constraints of the medium. A box that shows arbitrary video and sound is a pretty blank slate.
posted by equalpants at 2:23 AM on November 2, 2006

For what it's worth, I know that BSG is more than just West Wing in space. I was referring to the visual style, with the harsh tints, the pedeconferencing, the sit-down edits, hand-held closups, and a thousand oither things that Thomas Schlamme basically melded together for his WW style. Of course, BSG also manages to create the only space-battles I can see myself getting excited about, out of a shoestring budget, so there's that too.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:02 AM on November 2, 2006

I was a fan of Sports Night (not during its original airings, unfortunately; I got into it when they used to show reruns on Comedy Central) and The West Wing, so I was looking forward to S60. I watched the first fiveepisodes and gave up on it. On TWW, Josh Lyman was passionate about what he did; he believed in what he was doing, and that he was helping to make the world a better place, and that made the character engaging. Danny Tripp doesn't have that passion, nor did I find any other reason to care about the character, nor that of Matt Albie.

Just one case study of what I don't like about the show. For clarity, I'll use S60-NBC to denote the drama that's on our TVs, and S60-NBS to denote the fictional, show-within-a-show sketch comedy airing on the fictional NBS.

In the third episode, one subplot centers around whether to do a joke regarding a school in a small town ("Ealing, Missouri") which had cancelled a production of The Crucible. S60-NBS, in the end, decides not to go with the joke because the people of Ealing are hard-working, good-hearted people. In telling this story, however, S60-NBC has taken several potshots at the people of Ealing (and by extension, real-world people like them). Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Studio 60 was born in the most outrageous piece of plagarism. A sideways acknowledgement ('they're talking about Paddy Chayefsky, that's a start') makes it OK?

By definition, if you cite your source, it's not plagiarism. The opening of the first episode was unnecessarily heavy-handed, and noting within the show that it was taken from Network doesn't make it any less heavy-handed, but it does make it not plagiarism.

makes me wonder: do 'smart' and 'televison' actually go together well?

a) Yes, there is smart television out there.
b) Studio 60 isn't it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:27 PM on November 2, 2006