somehow, i doubt these are the questions aaron sorkin was trying to raise
And yet, they're all I've got after watching a third mind-bogglingly retarded yet improbably enjoyable episode of Studio 60. Feel free to provide your answers below, reader(s).
1. Would you care if Steve McPherson, Kevin Reilly, Dawn Ostroff, Peter Liguori or Nina Tassler got a D.U.I. eight years ago?
2. Do you know who Steve McPherson, Kevin Reilly, Dawn Ostroff, Peter Liguori or Nina Tassler are?
3. Would you even waste a glance on a tell-all book written about Steve McPherson, Kevin Reilly, Dawn Ostroff, Peter Liguori or Nina Tassler?
4. Do you have a favorite television writer or showrunner?
5. Assuming you do, would you recognize your favorite writer or showrunner in a picture?
6. How about outside a club where you've decided to camp out until they exit?
7. Would you ask your favorite writer or showrunner for their autograph?
8. On a piece of paper, your chest, or an article about their recent issues with substance abuse?
9. Do you think that autograph might have any value in the collectibles market?
10. Science? Shmience?
Huh. All that bluster and not a single Studio 60-prompted thought about free speech, censorship, religion, patriotism, or the FCC to be found in this brain of mine. Better luck next week, Mr. Sorkin. That is, if you can pry yourself away from your adoring autograph-demanding fans long enough to write an episode.
These are the only questions I think Aaron Sorkin could have been trying to raise with this episode since he sure didn't raise any others. Great post.
Posted by: Megan | October 03, 2006 at 08:54 PM
Any bets on how long before Danny's back on the Powder?
Posted by: randall | October 04, 2006 at 07:44 PM
I can't believe this show has a LITERAL ticking clock. That's like having all your characters board an actual ark.
Posted by: The Gilded Moose | October 04, 2006 at 08:15 PM
I can't believe this show has a LITERAL ticking clock. That's like having all your characters board an actual ark.
Posted by: The Gilded Moose | October 04, 2006 at 08:23 PM
I think I asked 7 of those 10 questions to my wife as she slept through the third episode of Studio 60. All I got were light snores in response. Thank you for quelling my mounting agitation with this. I had high hopes, but they definitely are circling the drain.
Posted by: Bart | October 04, 2006 at 08:24 PM
Can we give Sorkin some retired EOTM sketch titles so he doesn't resort to "Crazy Christians" and "Science Schmience?" I will generously donate "Batman Flea Market" and "Garden Weasel," can I hear a "No-Tell Motel" and "Speed Dating?" I thought when people were asking for autographs from Matthew Perry's character's autograph, it was just some overeager extras who wanted Matthew Perry, star of Friends's autograph. That said, I like the show until they show Sorkin's brilliance at laugh-out-loud comedy. When they do that, I make the "eww" face.
Posted by: Showboat | October 04, 2006 at 10:29 PM
And also, anyone else connect how Otis from Kicking and Screaming plays one of the hack writers, but bears a resemblance to Sorkin? Think about it.
Posted by: Showboat | October 04, 2006 at 10:32 PM
How about that the show needed to retain 90% of its lead-in...a very high number..and the guest host to do that was Rob Reiner? Yeah, that's realistic.
Posted by: JBF | October 05, 2006 at 07:09 AM
Brilliant post. It takes my boyfriend and I literally two hours to watch this show because we keep pausing it to ask these very questions. And for just that reason, I will not miss an episode.
Finally, TV has its Showgirls.
Posted by: Jerry | October 05, 2006 at 09:53 AM
Wow, Jerry, I thought I was the only one. My girlfriend and I paused every few minutes for the same thing - same questions, same ridiculous leaps of logic. Who cares about Jordan's DUI? How many autograph hounds would be pestering a writer? (even a writer self-described as "famous") and one linked, improbably, to all manner of hot female celebrities like Fiona Apple and Rachel McAdams.) Would the show's numbers really rise because of public "curiosity" about two returning writers?
Oh, brother....
Posted by: Garrett | October 05, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Thank you thank you thank you. I live in L.A. I work in Hollywood. Hell, I work in TV. Fuck, I'm a TV *writer*. So you'd think if anyone could care about the minutae of producing a show -- even the little gossip-y bits about who slept with who and who's doing blow/heroin/Smirnoff -- it'd be me.
But... nope. Amanda Peet drinks. Drank! Past tense! 8 years ago? Lord. And it's on the NEWS? Someone give Dawn Ostroff a fifth of Jack and put her in a Nash Rambler. Let's see what shakes out.
Wanted to love this show. Pilot got 90% of my love. Second episode dropped to 70% (and if Mark McKinney is *really* writing these sketches, then Kids In The Hall was a fluke). This last episode held onto 25% of my enjoyment, which is just about what they're pulling ratings-wise...
Anyway: Thanks for dragging it out into the light.
Posted by: Eric | October 05, 2006 at 11:47 AM
I think i'm like everyone...i had high, high hopes for this show and now all i have is huge, huge disappointment. The interesting thing about Saturday Night Live has always been the disfunction and disfunctional staff behind the scenes. So what does Sorkin do, he fills his show with the nicest, most functional, straight arrow group of people around.
You want to add an interesting twist Aaaron, when the hot blonde comes up and hits on D.L. Hughley, instead of passing her off to the skinny, meak white dude, let her call a friend and the two of them take the girls home together, stay up till all hours doing god knows what and then have one of the die from overdose - that's a storyline for the rest of the season right there...let's face it, that's what Belushi would have done.
And here's a question, if Studio 60 is the penultimate show in it's genre as they would like us to believe, why so many references to SNL in the show? Lorne Michaels, Wayne's World...i'm all for suspending disbelief, but I find it a little hard to believe that there are two shows that are exactly the same that air one night apart (please ignore the obvious comparsion to Studio 60 and 30 Rock having the same subject on the same network!). How is the show supposed to be considered ground breaking if there is a show doing the exact same thing on a competing network, the very next night!?!?
I try not to think too much about this stuff, cause it causes me not to sleep very well at night!!
Posted by: Dan | October 05, 2006 at 01:22 PM
On the "penultimate" angle Dan, I keep wondering about the Studio 60 "comedy"... are they intentionally making it bad SNL? Which is already bad to begin with? Is the idea merely that Matthew Perry's character can bring the show to SNL quality (which I would put in quotes to cast aspersion on said quality had I not already overquoted in this paragraph)?
As a KITH fan from way back, it is my greatest hope that Mark McKinney is making some biting commentary on his time with Lorne Michaels via shit like science shmience. I'm not holding my breath though...
Posted by: employee megan | October 05, 2006 at 06:42 PM
imagine if hollywood had half the integrity sorkin paints them as having how much MORE incredibly sanctimonious they'd be. or at least kind of have the right to be.
unlike now...which only makes 60 look like hypocrisy.
Posted by: mf | October 17, 2006 at 10:14 PM
uxicphqno ocna phodsueif rcwmnaof mues lqencpsgj ogax
Posted by: uvkydg wdmgbvsu | June 03, 2007 at 05:45 PM