1329 replies to this topic

[Artlawprod]

Read an interesting article? Tell us about it here.

[Mr. Excitement]

In a bit of possible good news, Broadcasting & Cable reports that Studio 60 may be rerun on some of NBC Universal's cable outlets, possibly Bravo and/or USA.

[english]

I think Mr. Excitement is referring to rebroadcasts--reairing the show within the same week as the first-run on NBC.

In a sort of navel-gazing way, MSNBC has an aritcle on having two series on NBC that reference a third series on the same network: The fall’s most-talked-about new show: ‘Studio 60’.

eta: Three(!?!) edits for a single post?

Edited by english, Jul 24, 2006 @ 10:58 PM.

[Glowegal]

The official S60 site is LIVE! Go play!

[Mr. Excitement]

Thanks for the pointer. That is a gorgeous group shot on the front page.

[english]

Yeah, that picture just became my desktop photo for a while. This is only the second time I've had a tv cast as my desktop picture. Incentive now to clean the desktop since BW is on the righthand side, currently peaking from behind an .mp3 file and an html document I need to finish designing.

Those ads have started in earnest on NBC now, haven't they. I'm liking the Cal-centered one. I need Netflix to send me the damn pilot (of course, that means I have to send them something back first).

[Alan Swann]

Nice setup on the site -- but I wish something on the control room console in the foreground had been "clickable," some little extra. Or maybe I've just spent too much time at J.K. Rowling's website.

[Maxie3987]

JK has a fantastic site, doesn't she? I'm hoping that they develop the site as the series progresses, maybe adding more links organically (if that makes sense). Beautiful, beautiful pictures though.

[immaf]

And did anyone mention to Fox that S60 is intended to be a drama?

[Alan Swann]

What a terrible article. I didn't expect much, given that it's Roger Friedman and Fox, but please:

- The first thing you need to know about 'Studio 60' is that Lorne Michaels, the grand pooh-bah of 'Saturday Night Live,' is not happy about it." Really? I thought the first thing most people would want to know is whether S60 is any damn good or not.
- I don't know that I'd call Judd Hirsch's rant a "nervous breakdown."
- I know I wouldn't describe Sarah Paulson's character as "the ingénue."
- He claims Danny is Sorkin's stand-in, rather than Matt.
- "I think she’s [Peet] supposed to be Jamie Tarses, who was at ABC for a minute, possibly when Sorkin had 'Sports Night' — starring Huffman — on the air." First, he thinks Jamie was the inspiration for Jordan? Oh, I forgot, people at Fox don't read or watch any other media -- they're the only ones that exist. Second, three years as a network entertainment president is "a minute?" Third, "possibly" when SN was on the air? He's right -- her last year at ABC was the show's first -- but he doesn't know he's right, and says so!

And on and on. It's fine, I suppose, that he doesn't think the show is funny -- that's a personal opinion, and as immaf notes, the show isn't a comedy -- but it kills me that he compares S60 to My Favorite Year, which was a comedy. That's like saying "I like watching SportsCenter, but Sports Night doesn't show me enough sports highlights, so I don't like it."

"All hacks, off the stage, now!"

[threeinchheels]

There are some reviewers I would take note of. Anything connected to Fox I couldn't care less. IMO all he has done is show how little he understands about the premise for the show, and it comes over as mean spirited to boot. Criticism is all well and good - this is just Fox being Fox.

[Richyyy]

I'd have no problem with a review that doesn't like the show, or even one written from a perspective that is essentially never going to like the show, but that review is so poorly written and horribly stupid that it doesn't deserve to have been published in any form. Awful.

[Artlawprod]

I agree with you Rickyyy. I know lots of journalists and they have these things called "fact checkers" who work for them. They are able to find out things like when Jamie Tarses was president of ABC and whether something is supposed to be an hour long drama.

I agree with Alan Swann, I don't care that you don't like it, that's just opinion, but it was like that WW article were they claimed that Josh and Donna didn't end up together and that we never found out what was going to happen to Charlie, which was patently untrue. Actually do some research or pay attention please. I don't expect you to be an expert, but if you claim to be a television journalist at least watch shows exclusively instead of playing World of Warcraft or whatever you were obviously doing instead of paying attention.

[Alan Swann]

I've realized another set of factual errors in that horrible Friedman article:

All we do know from the pilot is that Hirsch gets mad because something “controversial” gets cut. (They don’t say what it was.) We do know there’s one bad skit called “Peripheral Man,” but we don’t see it.

First, it's "Peripheral Vision Man," not "Peripheral Man." Second, at least two conversations describe the cut sketch to some degree, and Harriet names it in her conversation with Matt.

That's not even fact-checking -- it's just reporting accurately what he sees. Total hack.

[threeinchheels]

As I've said before, it's Fox, it must have been expected. I'm not even bothered that it wasn't fact checked - there are plenty of instances of sloppy journalism on all sides of the political fence. My gripe is that if you're going to critique something it's probably an idea to pay attention when you're watching it.

Edited by threeinchheels, Aug 8, 2006 @ 4:31 PM.

[Alan Swann]

Brief review of the pilot on BlogCritics.org... not the best-written piece I've seen (uses "surprisingly" twice in two sentences, and says the show could become "a glib portrait of glibness"), but not bad.

[immaf]

What does it say about me that I find that picture hysterically funny, but not particularly hot?

Edited by immaf, Aug 14, 2006 @ 7:38 PM.

[Ali Arikan]

Box Office Prophets have a favourable review of the pilot here.

[hooleelia]

I went to the fox article expecting a rant but actually finding myself agreeing with some of it. Especially this bit.

Much like “The West Wing,” the characters talk a lot and they talk fast. They say everything as if it has great importance, and it’s all either an epiphany or a revelation. This worked on “The West Wing” because what hung in the balance was the nation, the presidency and democracy. Here, very little is at stake, unless of course you’re an advertiser on “Studio 60.” The show itself is not funny at all, and captures none of the humor of a comedy show. In fact, it’s deadly serious.

I think that's a very valid point. Josh got away with his cockiness and smugness because at the end of the day he was fighting the good fight. I don't think it will be as charming if he's fighting for a sketch show plus, on a personal note, the idea of Whitford portraying a drug adddict just makes me gag for some reason.

[ethanvahlere]

The old thread got closed down before anyone could answer me, so I'll ask again; that Jonathan Bernstein article that was much discussed before, is that by the same guy who used to be an editor for Spin, and who wrote this book?

[Ali Arikan]

ethan - Yes, it's the very same person. And just like his wonderful book Pretty In Pink: The Golden Age of Teenage Movies, the article was also very enjoyable, and made some valid points.

[ainoarwen]

Dead Cell alerted the good folks on the Guest Star Wishlist that there's a 30 Rock promo that has Alec Baldwin asking when he gets to meet Aaron Sorkin now that he's signed up for the show. He also mentions Amanda Peet in the promo. You can see it at the NBC First Look section under "Wrong show" in 30 Rock's videos.