Studio 60 has the right motivation but the wrong execution. As rich as Aaron Sorkin's work can be, he is wasting too much energy trying to remind us that he's the smartest guy in the room. A few weeks ago, a character made a snide reference to Moliere'. I know who Moliere' was, but it's not clever or funny. Hey, show us a sketch once in a while so we believe that these people work for a network comedy show. Studio 60 is grimly self aware and there's just not much entertainment value there right now.

Wew said:

"You can't always make shows that kowtow to the opinion of the audience. Pandering is not a surefire way to make success."

Kowtowing and pandering is ALL Studio 60 does. For something that was described in introduction as a smart show, it's produced surprisingly little evidence of it - I'm one of the panderees and even *I* can't take much more of it! Some actual smarts would be a good substitution for the contrivances we've seen so far.

Steven Weber's great. Matt Perry's great. Brad Whitford is unfortunate to be playing an annoying and self-obsessed character; his natural likeability as an actor is being stretched TO THE LIMIT to cover for some awful writing. Sarah Paulson, a good actor, is clearly (and severely) miscast, and Amanda Peet is thoroughly unbelievable. The scripts veer continuously between moments of "hey, that was kinda like The West Wing", "hey, that was kinda like Sports Night" and "hey, that was... really, really badly done".

If S60 is a drama, then some actual drama would be a good idea, not the B-grade shallow and poorly-motivated soap-type stuff we've seen so far. If it's a comedy... well, I don't know what to say if it's a comedy. Maybe "whoops"?

Seriously, folks, look at 'em back to back - an average episode of CSI IS SMARTER than S60. If that isn't a warning sign, I don't know what is.

What's this silliness about the 'potential'? Creativity isnt about compromise. Priority One is being the best. Not politiking or making nice. The story began with a prominent religion skit. The first arc HAS to deal with religion. That's the topic that brought Matt and Albie back into the fold and the hitherto revival of S60.

How do you write that kind of opening and not focus on religious topics?

Look, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this show. S60 is a new tv show show in an era of youtube, internet and video game distractions. A show has to compete for eyeballs every 10 minutes. Your ratings will reflect that. That is the reason why reality tv shows and procedurals do so well in tv. They are self contained 30 minute blocks with a template so formulaic that the audience needs only a pay the minimal amt of attention since they already know what to expect. Constant structures aren't a bad thing. S60 has plenty of those. But no successful show can be wed to such a formulaic process. Even Survivor had to include gimmicks like Race vs Race or Women vs. Men. But Survivor was too scared of the audience reaction to fully exploit their gimmicks. And you're asking S60 to basically do the same by not discussing religion in their first arc.

The Afghanistan dialogue was a bit weird, but so is the character of Tom Jeter. Tom Jeter is a snobby west coast liberal. That's what makes him such a counterpart to South Side Black Guy. But yes, the Afghanistan dialogue was weak but that's one line in a serious of brilliant discussions. Gay marriage, racism, media, both sides of the argument was discussed in a 40 minute format.

Just because war is more important than comedy doesn't mean that that a soldier's love of professional effectiveness is any less than a performer's will to study and excel at his chosen art.

You can't always make shows that kowtow to the opinion of the audience. Pandering is not a surefire way to make success.

Will S60 make enough money to rival Friends or ER? Eh. Will it make more money than CSI? Definately. Product differentiation is what drives growth and profit. Always. Copycat products like "Deal or no Deal" are a safer bet but original, well written entertainment will always have a audience.

It just needs a little momentum.

I don't know what people are watching when they say Studio 60 isn't 'laugh out loud' funny. I just watched the lastest episode on a train and laughed out loud at least three times despite myself (and to the annoyance of the passengers across from me, I'm sure). And I've laughed out loud each week at something in the show. Not to say that I don't with shows like 30 Rock too, but I think it's remarkable that Sorkin can get such a wonderful balance of tone between genuine comedy, wit, and dramatic and emotional resonance.

The thing that is the most remarkable, however, is the amount of passion it's stirring, whether you love it or hate it. If I wrote a show, I'd want just as many people hating it as loving it, because at least that means I've stirred emotions and created debate.

Not many shows this season are creating as many hot tempers as Studio 60, and you can bet that Sorkin is more than pleased about that. The fact that people hate it THAT much that they take time out of their day to post to blogs or message boards about it just shows you how much he's gotten under their skin and actually made an impression. And that's a victory as a writer, no matter how you look at it.

Mostly what seems to be happening is that people have a problem with the show's content for their own personal reasons or agendas, and then try to justify that with some kind of misguided critique on a largely sophisticated and very impressively put-together piece of television. You can find enough flaws in anything if you're looking hard enough. But soon enough it's just petty, and it's just plain boring. If you enjoy it, you enjoy it. If you don't, go play with some other kids. It's been on long enough for people to make their minds up and stop watching (I certainly have never watched eight episodes of a show I hated. Who has that kind of time??).

Oh, and 'Cheeses of Nazareth' is still making me laugh, and I saw the episode about eight hours ago now. It's not high-brow, but damn it's funny.

Completely with you on this, Brett. There needs to be some kind of balance - or at the very least, I need a breather from Harriet and Matt fighting about the issue of the day. How were these two ever in a relationship to begin with?? I linked to you in my latest Studio 60 article for MediaVillage - link in my name below.

Well, we need the whole subplot with Jordan's jerk of an ex-husband saying she doesn't like kids so they can make a big moment out of her pregnancy, which should be announced any day now. My main issue is with the Harriet character...yes, she's a Christian, but wouldn't you think there are more elements to her personality worth focusing on? She has been written as entirely one-note, and that note is getting very old and flat.

Not only do we have to stop with the non-argument argument on religion, which in Harriet's case is like a pro-lifer who's perfectly fine with what your views on abortion are either way. But can we stop with the raping of old "Sports Night" scripts except rather than lump obscure sports facts, change them to obscure theatre facts. Also how about planning out the script better rather than have some deus ex machina crap pulled out of Sorkin's ass like busting out the army base statement at the last minute in order to get everybody out of Parump. I can't believe that warranted a two-parter. Finally, wouldn't a better plot with Jordan include her real-life pregnancy especially when dropping the "I don't like children" statement or was it that they were pissed off at Amanda Peet's pregnacy and decided to pull a Jamie Tarses? (Jamie Tarses was the first female ABC President who ended up being unjustly fired after being stuck with bad prelit pilots from the last regime. Her brother, Matt Tarses, was a writer on "Sports Night" as well as "Scrubs" and the short-lived "Teachers.)

Oh, just kill Studio 60 already and make 30 Rock an hour. THAT is a show that is laugh-out-loud funny. Sorkin's constant harangue's and in-jokes are as thin as last week's Nicole Ritchie.

Elf --

How many other comedies/dramas are there about people's daily jobs on the air right now? A dozen?

The West Wing was intense not just because it dealt with the big issues, but because it showed what it was like to deal with those. Same thing with Sports Night -- it was the drama of a team working passionately toward a single goal.

That's the element that is missing here right now. The sense that these characters are passionate about this job. That's where the drama will and should come from.

Yeah they are beating the dead horse well.

And if they get rid of the "hot button" issues of gay marriage we would be left with the more overly bad drunken network president and other shit no one in the real world cares about.