Yes, it’s a new season, and I’m going to get back to the much asked-after Cowboy Pete entries. I used to do them on day of airing, and then people complained because they claimed I was doing too many blog entries about TV shows. So I started consolidating them, except then it was too many at one time and I just didn’t get to it. So I’m going back to doing them as I see the shows, and if you don’t like it, Dan can point the way out for you. So there, nyaaah.
I am going to routinely put all comments in the extended entry, however, so as to avoid spoiler comments in this day and age of Tivo.
I guess it was inevitable. First there was “Sports Night,” about the production of a live TV show. Then there was “West Wing,” a heady mix of politics and social commentary. And now Aaron Sorkin combines the two into–what else–a series about the production of a live TV show that keys off politics and social commentary. And it features Josh and Danny from “West Wing” (except Josh is now called Danny, which is confusing the hëll out of me) and Joe from “West Wing” as well (except he’s now called Matt, which is less confusing since it happens to be the actor’s actual first name) and it guest starred Dana from “Sports Night” (which wasn’t confusing at all since her character had the first AND last name of the actress, so it was pretty easy to remember she was Felicity Huffman).
Amazingly, no one said “I’m just saying” or “Yeah” which almost made me think it wasn’t an Aaron Sorkin show.
Credit Sorkin with being able to keep up with the viewer. The show opens with a frustrated Alex from “Taxi” (Judd Hirsch guest starring) having an on-air meltdown. I was watching it and thinking that, gee, it was an interesting ramble, but it wasn’t remotely as well-written or memorable as when Paddy Chayefsky’s anchorman melted down in “Network.” Apparently Sorkin agreed, but rather than make it a really really kick-ášš memorable speech, he just had every newscaster on the show compare it to “Network.” I suppose that was to defuse everyone who was going to say that Sorkin ripped off “Network,” and it probably worked, but I *still* wish the speech had been better.
But no matter. Not only is Judd Hirsch watchable in dámņëd near anything (“Independence Day” proved that) he was just the opening bell for a sea change in the SNL-esque “Studio 60,” signalling the less-than-triumphant return of the show’s former and once-fired show runners. There’s a ton of exposition, a boatload of characters (many of whom received short shrift), and the pilot desperately needed to be ninety minutes since I felt like it was just getting started when it ended.
There’s some wonderful playing against type and expectations, though: A network president who is clearly ready to put her neck on the line; one of “Studio 60’s” cast members is devoutly religious but supports the airing of a sketch called “Crazy Christians.” And anchoring the whole thing are Bradley Whitford playing, basically, Aaron Sorkin (complete with drug problems) and Matthew Perry whose character is doped up on Vicodin (which I was for about three months after blowing out my knee, so I instantly sympathized). The show still needs to find its rhythms and balance out the cast, but there’s a lot of good stuff here and I’m definitely in for the long haul…
…as long as I can learn all the dámņëd names.
PAD
• 
Let’s see. The only names I can remember are Amanda Peet and Sarah Pauson…
-RY
DL Hughley, Timothy Busfield, Steven Weber, Ed Asner, and God only knows who else… This is one dámņëd good show, and Pete, you’re right, it should have been ninety minutes to two hours. Because it went blasting by so fast I was sure I missed something.
I know Judd’s speech should have been better, and it suffers by comparison to Peter Finch in Network, but it still floored me. It’s one thing to hear something like that coming out of the mouth of a clearly demented news anchor who’s standing there, dripping wet, in pajamas and a trench coat, declaiming that he’s mad as hëll and he’s not gonna take it any more. Hearing from an obviously pìššëd-off showrunner who hijacks his own show and tells his viewers that tv sucks and they should turn it off is quite another. That the news readers were literate enough to compare Mendell’s rant to Chayevsky was gravy to me.
Yeah, the new show hasn’t hit its stride yet. But it’s awfully close. I love this show, and I’ll find a way to catch it every week.
At least until I start working on Mondays. And I may find a way to watch it even then.
Miles
Actually, Sorkin seems to have split himself between Perry and Whitford’s character — the relationship with Sarah Paulson’s Christian is a riff on Sorkin’s own relationship with Kristen Chenowyth. In fact, there was a great deal of speculation that Chenowyth would play that role, but I guess that was too meta…
And Amanda Peet’s character is obviously meant to be Jamie Tarses.
Maybe there’s been an greater-than-normal abundance of crap on network television lately, or I’m just gettin more discriminatory as I get older, but an old cliche applies here: This was like a breath of fresh air. Really. I had this nice, cool feeling inside while watching it – I’m not going to say uplifting neccesarily, but close.
I was trying to pin down what it is about Sorkin’s shows I like. After much consideration, I think I’ve figured it out. I genuinely LIKE all of his characters – and the actors that play them. Not that all of his characters are nice or good, but I LIKE watching them – I ENJOY watching them. On most shows, there’s at least one character and/or actor/actress that really gets under my skin and makes my eyes bleed. So far I haven’t seen any of those on Sorkin’s shows, which makes the show easy to watch.
I’m excited about this show. I like how Aaron Sorkin basically exists to make all other television shows look like crap.
I also liked how they riffed on Matthew Perry’s personal life. Not only is he playing a character named Matt, but he was high on pain killers because he had back surgery. But I’m guessing they won’t have him become addicted to them (especially with Bradley Whitford’s character being an addict).
If Heroes (which I’m also excited about) is half as good as this show, this is going to be a great two hours of television. It looks like NBC is finally getting it together. Of course, they already had the best hour of television (My Name is Earl and The Office), so in my eyes they’ve pretty much won the network wars.
Question is, having missed the first episode, is it going to be worth jumping on for the second one, or is this one of those shows where I’d just be hopelessly lost not having seen what came before?
-Rex Hondo-
Let’s see…
Tommy Schlamme = Director
Aaron Sorkin = Writer
Bradley Whitford’s character = Director
Matthew Perry’s character = Writer
Yeah, it’s really hard to figure out who’s supposed to be analogous to whom.
Aaron Sorkin and Kristen Chenoweth are involved? And Kristen’s all Christ-y and faithy? This is news to me, mainly because it seems odd that Kristen would garner a role on THE WEST WING over a year *after* Sorkin had abandoned it. Kind of flies in the face of standard television practice, in a way.
I liked the pilot a lot, although it lacked the pure “bowl-you-over” quality of the SPORTS NIGHT and WEST WING pilots. I’ll be back next week, though. There’s a lot of fun to be had in this particular arena, and if Sorkin’s crazy enough to take on the religious right, I’ll be cheering him on and making the popcorn.
“I liked the pilot a lot, although it lacked the pure “bowl-you-over” quality of the SPORTS NIGHT and WEST WING pilots.”
This is true. Last night I watched the Sports Night pilot for the zillionth time (it’s one of those series that never gets old no matter how many times I watch it), and it still amazes me. I swear I burst into tears every single dámņ time I see Entazaki Nelson (I have no idea how that name is actually spelled) break the world’s record. Actually, it’s Casey’s line — “He’s not doing much, he’s just running faster than any man has ever run before” — that gets me every time.
I also cry every single time I watch the SECOND episode, when Dan delivers his speech about his dead brother, and then he says, “That was eleven years ago today,” thus brilliantly and touchingly explaining why he said he hadn’t done drugs in 11 years in the magazine article.
Hëll, most of the episodes of that show make me cry, none more so than the last one. That whole series was just a blend of perfect writing, perfect directing, and perfect acting (especially the brilliant Felicity Huffman).
If you missed the first episode, it’s available through Netflix, if you happen to use that service.
The round-ups back?
Do a little dance! Make a little love! Get down tonight! Get down tonight!
Well, after watching the pilot on AOL this weekend, I’m hooked. So much so that although I was pretty busy last night, I still found time to sit down and watch it again. I can’t wait to watch this show grow!
Some random thoughts-
* Best line- “I already have a dual masterbation show in active development.”
* I really liked the Production Assistant character, especially her “Are you hear to save us?” I hope we see more of her to get sort of the “ground level” view of what is going on.
* The nice goofy guy from WINGS is GONE! And that’s great.
*I don’t think we’ve seen the last of Judd Hirsch. You don’t hire an actor like him for such a small, though important, role.
* Could this please be set in the same universe as Sports Night? How great would it be for one of the SN anchors to show up as a “Studio 60” guest host? Perhaps Sabrina Lloyd could show up for a couple of weeks as a producer before deciding she likes working sports news better? As a friend of mine at work said this morning “A unified Sorkin Universe would make me explode with glee.”
* One big question I hope gets addressed. If Matt wrote “Crazy Christians” four years ago, how did it find itself in the lineup for that night’s show? Was it submitted by one of the show’s current writers under their own name after being found in an old file? Did the Judd Hirsch character slip it in?
As a Christian who is not part of the religious right, it was nice to see them skrewed while acknowledgements were made that not all of us agree with them. In fact, I was worried with all the focus on the Christian character, but Paulson might be what we need to allow us with senses of humor and liberal leanings to step out of the shadows a bit.
They really took it to the FCC, the current lack of political leadership, and the crazy way TV is run. It was an across the board equal opportunity offender. The fact they made mention of the way funny will offend some segment. Can’t wait to see that weasel standards character get taken down a peg.
This show has powerful actors, but can it survive the people it surely offended? We gotta watch or lose a great show.
Question is, having missed the first episode, is it going to be worth jumping on for the second one, or is this one of those shows where I’d just be hopelessly lost not having seen what came before?
-Rex Hondo-
Good news! Bravo is rerunning it Wednesday night at 11 e/10 c.
I really enjoyed the show, too. Almost forgot it was on, and was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be so worth watching!
A few thoughts to Rich Drees’ comments:
* The nice goofy guy from WINGS is GONE! And that’s great.
Aw, Steven Weber’s been taking a fair number of roles contrary to his “Wings” character. But, yeah, it’s nice he got this one that’s so high-profile yet.
* Could this please be set in the same universe as Sports Night? How great would it be for one of the SN anchors to show up as a “Studio 60” guest host? Perhaps Sabrina Lloyd could show up for a couple of weeks as a producer before deciding she likes working sports news better? As a friend of mine at work said this morning “A unified Sorkin Universe would make me explode with glee.”
But…but…Felicity Huffman already exists in the “Studio 60” universe, and Dana never mentioned having an actress twin in “Sports Night” 😉
Still, I suspect as the show goes on, we’ll see actors from the Sorkin repertory show up. After all, as impressed as I am with the show so far, I won’t believe “Studio 60” is a Sorkin show until Joshua Malina shows up…
*I don’t think we’ve seen the last of Judd Hirsch. You don’t hire an actor like him for such a small, though important, role.
* One big question I hope gets addressed. If Matt wrote “Crazy Christians” four years ago, how did it find itself in the lineup for that night’s show? Was it submitted by one of the show’s current writers under their own name after being found in an old file? Did the Judd Hirsch character slip it in?
Yeah, I suspect there’s a touch more to the Judd Hirsch character, and his part in getting Whitford and Perry’s characters sacked earlier, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that controversial sketch somehow gets mentioned again as part of all that reveal…
On NBC’s site at
http://www.nbc.com/Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip/
you can watch a 2-minute recap of the episode or the whole episode if you’d like.
You might also want to check out the STUDIO 60 blog at http://blog.nbc.com/studio/
One entry:”Everytime Nate Corddry screws up a take, Perry puts him on Josh Malina Watch.”
Neil
I liked it. My main problem was separating the Bradly Wittford’s charater of Danny from his West Wing role of Josh. I’m sure that will get easier as the show progresses.
It’s nice to see Matthew Perry in a serious role. I’m sure that there will be humorous moments, given that it’s Sorkin’s show and it’s about a comedy show, but still…good to see him getting to stretch his legs.
Personally, I liked Felicity Huffman’s line: “I need the very šlûŧŧÿ dress and someone else to wear it.” It perfectly captured how far Studio 60 had fallen from its (presumed) previous high.
It’s nice to be Aaron Sorkin’s bìŧçh again, isn’t it? I really, really missed that.
But…but…Felicity Huffman already exists in the “Studio 60” universe, and Dana never mentioned having an actress twin in “Sports Night” 😉
Remember that Hawkeye never asked Col. Potter about his resemblance to that nutty General who wanted to courtmartial him until he cracked and danced out of the mess tent singing “Mississippi Mud”… 🙂
Great opening nite…. and man is someone channelling Paddy or what, but I love the spin they took on the inevitable comparison… No he’s not Howard Beall, but I don’t think they should have pushed it that far… this is comfortable… Sorkin has addressed the similarities in the two characters and has moved on. Now if he can avoid the temptation of making Peet into a bad parody of Faye Dunaway…
Are you gonna submit a script, Pete?
Bob Ahrens
During Judd Hirsch’s speech, I was mostly thinking “This show is airing on NBC? The home of SNL?”
I don’t love the show as much as Sports Night or West Wing, yet, but I didn’t get into either of those until well after they began (SN was already off the air and on DVD). So maybe one episode just isn’t enough to fall in love with the characters yet. (Or maybe Josh Malina needs to show up- that would speed up the falling in love with at least one character a lot.) But it was so good to turn on the television and see a new episode of something and hear Sorkin dialogue.
Peter:
Out of curiousity, what other shows will Cowboy Pete be rounding up this season?
Sports Night was a show which started out great, but then lost its way when it strayed from the behind-the-scenes on a sports show, warts and all satire, and devolved into a show in which the characters began whining about their relationships. That’s not what it was supposed to be. That’s not what it started out as. By the time it was canceled, I’d become bored and disappointed with it. Thankfully West Wing stayed on course even after Sorkin left.
This show will be a keeper.
I agree with the Network reference.
James Van Hise posted:
“Sports Night was a show which started out great, but then lost its way when it strayed from the behind-the-scenes on a sports show, warts and all satire, and devolved into a show in which the characters began whining about their relationships. That’s not what it was supposed to be. That’s not what it started out as. By the time it was canceled, I’d become bored and disappointed with it.”
I disagree that the show lost its way. The show was supposed to be what Sorkin thought it should be, not what the viewers thought it should be.
He also said:
“Thankfully West Wing stayed on course even after Sorkin left.
I think a large percentaqe of viewers thought West Wing crashed and burned after Sorkin left. The ratings seemed to reflect that.
“Sports Night was a show which started out great, but then lost its way when it strayed from the behind-the-scenes on a sports show, warts and all satire, and devolved into a show in which the characters began whining about their relationships. That’s not what it was supposed to be. That’s not what it started out as.”
I disagree. I think it was always about their relationships from the very beginning, and it continued to be about the behind-the-scenes of a sports show until the very end. In fact, I think it got even better in the second season.
I watched S60 because I loved West Wing, but I wasn’t crazy about the pilot. West Wing managed to keep from being preachy most of the time, but S60 couldn’t steer clear of it. There was too much of the “I’m an artist and should be free to express!” theme throughout. Knock spineless corporations, knock the religious right, but, hey, artists are wonderful! Knowing Sorkin’s history and how he was removed from West Wing, it just seemed like it was a therapeutic exercise more than TV drama.
I’ll give it a bit more time, but so far I’m underwhelmed.
“Vanished” has been good so far, and I’m really looking forward to “Jericho”.
I thought it was terrible. Does anyone remember that HBO show “Mr. Show” that had a pre-Arrested Development David Cross on it as well as post-Ben Stiller Show Bob Odenkirk? Well, on one episode they did this sketch called “Rap: The Musical”. The joke was that the musical contained no actual rap.
That’s the sort of relationship this show has to comedy. It’s a show about a comedy show, but with
no actual jokes. I know the show-within-a-show is supposed to bad, but jeez, you’d think the cast members would at least be saying funny things off the set, indulging in some gallows-humor about how fûçkëd their careers are or something.
Nope. Just everybody taking things way too seriously. Sorkin should know better. “Sports Night” was a good show, a funny show. This is just crap.
-Dave O’Connell
I thought it was terrible. Does anyone remember that HBO show “Mr. Show” that had a pre-Arrested Development David Cross on it as well as post-Ben Stiller Show Bob Odenkirk? Well, on one episode they did this sketch called “Rap: The Musical”. The joke was that the musical contained no actual rap.
That’s the sort of relationship this show has to comedy. It’s a show about a comedy show, but with
no actual jokes. I know the show-within-a-show is supposed to bad, but jeez, you’d think the cast members would at least be saying funny things off the set, indulging in some gallows-humor about how fûçkëd their careers are or something.
Nope. Just everybody taking things way too seriously. Sorkin should know better. “Sports Night” was a good show, a funny show. This is just crap.
-Dave O’Connell
I’m going to be interested to see what Cowboy Pete’s Golden Lasso of Truth pulls out of two other shows this fall: NBC’s “Heroes” and ABC’s “Ugly Betty.”
The first actually has (or had) its pilot up on Yahoo, and theoretically up on iTunes (but it can’t be found there). I saw about 2/3 of the pilot on Yahoo (which says it’s no longer available). “Heroes” looks like it’s trying to do a drab “Threshold” show, fully aware that Marvel and DC will sue them if they even hint at the word “superhero.” Well, let’s see what happens with the next few episodes – which, if it doesn’t cheer up a little, may be all the episodes it gets.
As for “Ugly Betty,” which has only been seen in promos, it looks really bad. Are all telenovelas full of campy characters in ugly clothes and Billy Bob teeth? Do Hispanic comedies for adults look like the kind of local TV kid shows that ran in thw 1960’s? The only reason that critics must be praising this thing is to force ABC to keep it on the air a while, as practical joke revenge for that awful “Path to 9/11” thing. After all, without the clown suits and slapstick action, it could have been “Less than Perfect” which ABC just cancelled.
The line “…but it’s going to be our show now and only one of us can screw up at a time, and I think we both know that most of the time it’s going to be me” seemed to be right out of ‘Sports Night’.
Yeah, I’m looking forward to this show.
Brian
I enjoyed it well enough, but there are some fair criticisms in the above posts.
What I’ll be watching for is what always bugged me about West Wing (which I only watched some of, to be fair). Everyone is just too good. Everyone is perfectly articulate, attractive, and competent, qualities which are generally lacking from government offices and behind the scenes of television and movies (my wife works in state government and my best friend is in Hollywood, so I hear all the stories).
I liked that the meltdown wasn’t so perfect, because it seemed a lot more like someone who was just pulling this stuff out of thin air and letting out his frustration, rather than someone reading a scripted speech.
I’ll give it some time, but if everyone turns out to be as ideal as they generally were in West Wing, I’ll probably lose interest.
“It’s a show about a comedy show, but with
no actual jokes.”
That’s because it’s not a comedy. It’s ABOUT a comedy show, but the show itself is more of a drama. Just because these people write and perform comedy for a living, it doesn’t mean they have to be funny in their everyday lives.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at September 20, 2006 Posted by: Robert Fuller
That’s because it’s not a comedy. It’s ABOUT a comedy show, but the show itself is more of a drama. Just because these people write and perform comedy for a living, it doesn’t mean they have to be funny in their everyday lives.
Dieing’s easy. Comedy’s hard.
Yes, it’s a new season, and I’m going to get back to the much asked-after Cowboy Pete entries. I used to do them on day of airing, and then people complained because they claimed I was doing too many blog entries about TV shows. So I started consolidating them, except then it was too many at one time and I just didn’t get to it. So I’m going back to doing them as I see the shows, and if you don’t like it, Dan can point the way out for you. So there, nyaaah.
Frell yeah! It’s YOUR WEBLOG and you’ll write what you wanna, write what you wanna.
Yes, it was nice to see like on THE WEST WING, Matthew Perry was more than capable of playing beyond “Chandler”.
It was also nice to see Steve Weber play beyond the goofy “Brian Hackett”–tho he had demonstrated that in the 4-episode run on ABC’s DA.
One quibble, Sorkin’s love running gags too long, or at least running an unfunny gag too long.
Otherwise, great show, great start, yeah, too short, woulda been nice if STUDIO 60 had been 2 hours and DEAL OR NO DEAL had been only an hour.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. I thought Matthew Perry as head writer was the analog to Aaron Sorkin while Brad Whitford
as the producing partner parallelled Thomas Schlamme.
Alex’s post about people on West Wing being “too good” madde me think of two things. First, that’s how we’d all LIKE to be. Second, I’ve got a Trek comedy poster somewhere with the top ten things heard on the Enterprise D. Number three is “Hey, how come there aren’t any fat guys on board?”
Now, this may be heresy, I may get stoned for this (Or at least have people think I AM stoned) but I never liked Sports Night. I tried. I really tried. I wanted to like it. Amazing cast, production that rivalled the best out there, but something about it just didn’t work for me.
I think it’s kind of ironic that Ken would above talk about “It’s your weblog do what you wanna” and then three lines down complain about Sorkin’s running gags. I don’t disagree with the first, and halfway agree with the second, but it just struck me as funny.
Just to comment on some earlier comments:
– Add me to those who thing that “Sports Night” didn’t falter because it strayed from some sort of intrinsic sports-centric basis. for relationship-y stories. OK, yes, you can certainly argue that some of the latter stories weren’t as good as the earlier ones (Dana’s Dating Plan being particularly reviled among SN fans…) but if that’s so, it’s just because those stories weren’t as compelling, not because the show was always supposed to be about sports. After all, as the promotional line said before the show launched: “It’s about sports. The same way Charlie’s Angels was about law enforcement.”
– Yes, Sorkin’s shows are often criticized for characters being “too good,” for presenting an unrealistic but idealized view of whatever world he’s showing (TV, politics, whatever.) But I think that’s part of his style. That, I do think, is an intrinsic part of a lot of his storytelling. And I fully expect that same thing to manifest in “Studio 60” (heck…it already has; when Whitford or Perry–can’t remember which–says to the other about Peet, “What if she’s for real?” that pretty much tells you that we’re going to be looking at a largely romanticized view of the biz.).
I’d be kinda disappointed if it didn’t…
“Now, this may be heresy, I may get stoned for this (Or at least have people think I AM stoned) but I never liked Sports Night.”
That’s okay. I didn’t really like The West Wing, to be honest. I liked it for the first season, and then I started to watch the second season but I quickly lost interest and gave it up. I have very little interest in either sports or politics, but while Sports Night wasn’t really about sports (except as metaphor, mostly), West Wing was very much about politics, and while I liked the characters (especially Josh and Donna), they weren’t enough to keep me watching.
Sean, I’m in pretty much the same boat as you with Sports Night. I tried, and tried, but just couldn’t really get into it. The main problem for me, ultimately, probably was that I didn’t like any of the three lead characters very much.
I was a big fan of Sorkin’s West Wing, though. I was curious about the Studio 60 show, though the cast seemed much more interesting to me than the premise. Ended up not paying attention to what week it was debuting, and, unless I decide to tape it, I probably won’t be checking it out until after football season…
Interesting commentary here, saying that Studio 60 is Aaron Sorkin’s Mary Sue story. He has a point.
Just watched it this morning on the DVR. It’s ok. Maybe by eps 3 or 4 I’ll be loving it. Maybe not.
Add me to the last few posters. Sports Night just never got off the ground for me.
I got this from Netflix with kidnapped and loathed it.
It’s easily the least interesting concept for a television show I have ever seen. The characters are all equaly loathesome, and none of them are worth more than the 40 minutes I spent squirming as I watched it.
Seriously, this is exactly what I HATE from Hollywood, shoe gazing and pretense.
But then, Sorkin has never done anything I’ve liked. SportsNight was one of the unfunniest things I ever saw.
Kidnapped on the other hand, tight, well acted, realistic, and the lead(Jeremy Sisto) character makes one of the best entrances in the history of TV. He quickly becomes a bad ášš on the level of 24’s Jack Bauer. Plus, Delroy Lindo’s on it.
I thought STUDIO 60 got off to a very good start. We start with an on-air meltdown on the roman a clef of SNL (supstitute Debbie Downer for Peripheral Vision Man — works just fine) and get running from there. The characters seem believable so far, and I *really* like the fact that they have a popular, overtly Christian character who isn’t going to get preachy at anything controversial. Even an agnostic like me sees that many shows and movies have Christians as narrow-minded zealots who exist to try to get their way and be put down by cool, modern liberal ideals. (Remember THE WEST WING pilot, where the “evil Christians” tried to have Josh fired and force the President to discuss school prayer or abstinence?)
As for everyone being too perfect, we shall see. Amanda Peet’s character could be too good to be true — or she could be meeting a potentially devastating on-air FUBAR situation with a 180 degree turn at something else. It looks like the new guys won’t have carte blanche on the show (they’re stuck with “Beavis and Lunkhead”) and the network is almost looking for them to fail.
And if you can’t remember all the character names like on THE WEST WING — how long did it take you to remember all of the WW people? Did anyone watch episode one and immediately remember Toby, C.J., John, Donna, Leo, and Josiah?
I did a full review a few weeks ago on my own blog:
http://scavgraphics.livejournal.com/148564.html
Brad Whitford has commented in most interviews that He’s playing Tommy and Matt is playing Aaron, and that it’s funny that Arron gave Tommy the drug addiction.
I felt the weak point in the show was Amanda Peet. She just doesn’t have the gravitas to stand up against Steven Weber’s character or next to Whitford or Perry’s.
There is a rumor around entertainment circles that Studio 60 does share a universe with Sports Night and we’ll be seeing Calvin Trager of the Quo Vadimus corporation showing up at some point. (He’s another of Sorkin’s go to guys, also being Special Agent Casper of the FBI from West Wing).
I did a full review a few weeks ago on my own blog:
http://scavgraphics.livejournal.com/148564.html
Brad Whitford has commented in most interviews that He’s playing Tommy and Matt is playing Aaron, and that it’s funny that Arron gave Tommy the drug addiction.
I felt the weak point in the show was Amanda Peet. She just doesn’t have the gravitas to stand up against Steven Weber’s character or next to Whitford or Perry’s.
There is a rumor around entertainment circles that Studio 60 does share a universe with Sports Night and we’ll be seeing Calvin Trager of the Quo Vadimus corporation showing up at some point. (He’s another of Sorkin’s go to guys, also being Special Agent Casper of the FBI from West Wing)—which would make it as sharing a universe with Spin City..hmmmm
Maybe it’s because I don’t care a whit about sports, but I watched the first two episodes of Sports Night recently and didn’t feel a need to watch any more. I thought they were ok, but they weren’t particularly funny and none of the characters appealed to me. I suppose this is akin to blasphemy amongst Sorkin fans, but I just thought the show was overrated.
As for Studio 60, it wasn’t perfect, but it was dámņ good. I’m on board for the foreseeable future.
SCAVENGER: “There is a rumor around entertainment circles that Studio 60 does share a universe with Sports Night and we’ll be seeing Calvin Trager of the Quo Vadimus corporation showing up at some point. (He’s another of Sorkin’s go to guys, also being Special Agent Casper of the FBI from West Wing)”
That would be Clark Gregg, and actor I like a real whole major lot. I hope this rumor is true!
I’ll confess that I liked Sports Night so much that every show thereafter that used the actors from Sports Night is a show that I have a small bias against, because it is one more point, proof, nail in the coffin, that Sports Night is not coming back.
Why should I like any Sorkin show now? It’s not Sports Night and it negates Sports Night.
I am being irrational.
I didn’t care for the show. First, it seemed ludicrously contrived:
1. A TV guy hijacking his show and giving a speech about how bad television is? First, this is cliche (it even happened in Scrooged), and second it is not realistic.
2. This all happening on the first day of the job of a new network president.
3. This all happening just as the person they were going to hire to be the new producer was getting an award.
And on and on.
Second, there was not a single character that I remotely cared about.
Well, I missed the pilot because I forgot it was on until after I’d watched “Weeds” (which is rerun later in the week) and, I think, a “Futurama” rerun on Adult Swim. I made a point of watching it this week and I kinda liked it.
The whole “Crazy Christians” flap demonstrates why I would never make it in television–my reaction to rumors of protestors outside my studio over a sketch that didn’t even air would be to say that the next show would start with a sketch that would make the unaired one look like something from the Inspiration channel (and I do have sketches like that tucked away in my head).
Paul