In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
Studio 60 Lament: "We Were Under a Microscope"
Amanda Peet by Art Streiber/NBC
As previously reported, NBC is bringing back Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, albeit on Thursday, May 24, the day after sweeps ends. Still, if all goes well, steadfast fans of 30 Rock's more serious big brother will get to see the first season's five unaired episodes.
Pondering the surprising fate of a show with such a solid pedigree — crafted by Aaron Sorkin, and populated by the likes of proven TV draws Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford — Amanda Peet shrugs off talk that S60 tried to be too smart for the room. "It was definitely very ambitious," she tells TVGuide.com, "but a part of me wonders if, had it been an unknown writer-creator instead of Aaron Sorkin, we would have had more time to find our tone and focus. Because we were under a microscope from the moment we arrived, it was very difficult for the creators to feel free to follow the strengths of the show and see that through."
Peet can next be seen starring alongside two other members of the Underappreciated TV Show All-star Team, Jason Bateman and Zach Braff, in the comedy The Ex, in theaters May 11. For Braff's latest take on Scrubs' own fate, see the TV Guide News Report.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
May 3, 2007 1:09 PM
|
|
Amanda Peet is correct. I think it is a great show. It is just not "in your face" humor like alot of people are use to. You have to actually ...... drum roll please .......... THINK when you watch it.
|
|
May 3, 2007 1:38 PM
|
You have to actually ...... drum roll please .......... THINK when you watch it.
I find the argument that this show tanked because it was "too smart" for the mainstream, specious and pretensious. The show tanked because it was bad. It had a promising start but slowly devolved into preachiness and then a bad romantic comedy. Fractured, all over the place and just not funny. Peet's comments mirror that same pretensious "I think I'm too smart for the room" attitude of Sorkin that led to its downfall.
|
|
May 3, 2007 1:47 PM
|
I have to disagree, Jennifer. It started out as appointment television for me. I turned off the computer. I gave it my undivided attention. I was greatly disappointed.
It was overly-glib, rather than having to make me think, it insulted my intelligence by hammering its messages with no subtlety whatsoever. I felt no chemistry among the characters and the words they were given to say just never felt real to me. I have loved Sorkin's work since Sports Night! I grieved when he left The West Wing. I was sincerely disappointed in Studio 60 from the first episode (and I've watched them all, hoping for improvement.)
I don't think it's fair to blame the viewers for abandoning this show. It started out with a fairly good audience, considering the timeslot. Week by week, though, it drove most of those viewers away.
|
|
May 3, 2007 1:57 PM
|
I did plenty of thinking while I watched "Studio 60" -- mostly about why this show didn't work. Sorkin is a talented writer, but he chose a setting he doesn't have much feeling for (sketch comedy), tried to structure the conflict around issues that didn't have much to do with his setting (Christianity, the Iraq war) and didn't seem to have plotted out any direction for the show after the first few episodes.
There's a lot of intelligent TV on now, plenty of innovative, meaty drama and original, quirky comedy for the discerning viewer. Of course, all those shows are too busy telling good stories to just yell toward the camera, a la S60, "This is smart! See how smart we are! If you say Moliere, you're smart!" Sorry, intelligence in drama isn't about name dropping. It's about subtlety, plot construction and follow-through. S60 didn't have it.
That said, I thought Matthew Perry's performance was terrific, I would tune in to see another Sorkin show, one where hopefully he's chosen a topic he can really work with.
|
|
May 3, 2007 3:53 PM
|
Like with everything, it's a combination of many factors that brought "Studio 60" down.
Amanda Peet is right that the show was under a massive microscope, and that certainly didn't help the show in terms of quality. It was pumped up so much, it had to be "The Sopranos" after the first episode. That just wasn't going to happen.
But at the same time, there were a lot of reasons to just not like the show in terms of what was on screen. It did target a very specific audience (never good for ratings), was pretty preachy at times, and did have trouble finding a cohesive thread.
It just didn't work out. It's too bad. It's not a terrible show (not in a world with a new lowest common denominator reality show every week), but it's not particularly remarkable either. Aaron Sorkin is a great writer, but no one hits a home run every time they come to bat. In his first game he hit a home run and the team lost (Sports Night). In his second, he hit a home run and the team won (The West Wing). In his third, he grounded out a couple times, maybe hit a long fly ball (Studio 60). He'll be back.
By the way, it almost scares me how gorgeous Amanda Peet is. Amazing.
|
|
May 3, 2007 5:24 PM
|
I wanted to love this show. I love Aaron Sorkin, Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, Bradley Whitford even Steven Weber.
But I never once "bought" this show. I never believed that these people were creating a wildly popular late-night sketch comedy show. The preachy writing worked on The West Wing because it was a political show, therefore they had to deal with such issues. These people are making a TV show. I doubt the folks wandering the halls at SNL are having anything like the conversations the folks on Studio 60 were having.
The show could have been interesting just being about the private and professional lives of people that work on such a show. They just didn't need to take on all the hot-button issues.
|
|
May 3, 2007 6:08 PM
|
It may not've been perfect but the work of the people putting the show together was top notch. Matthew Perry's work was a gem and thanks to Aaron for giving Steven Weber to us as Jack Rudolph. There were but a handful of shows I brought everything to a standstill to watch this year and Studio 60 was one of those at the top. S60, The Office, 30 Rock, Grey's, Ugly Betty...you speak during the middle of the scene and you're temporarily dead to me for the rest of the show that night. Of any series on this season, I'd much rather rewatch S60 than any of the others. Anything that was funny is still funny (and there was plenty. If you didn't hear the quips and call the show unfunny, you must be deaf. Brad's reactions and Tim's physicality had me chuckling), some things get even funnier, and I enjoy it even more the second time around. It holds up.
I do think people found a way to label the show that they wouldn't have been quite so eager to do if Sorkin's name hadn't been attached. For every fair criticism (and sure there's a good deal to think about), I absolutely saw things that were much too vitriolic and overdid it. It was as if being honest wasn't going to do enough damage to the public perception of the show so they needed to go for style points. There are reviews and then there are deliberate attempts to take out a series through whatever bad word of mouth could be come up with which is what stunned me. I absolutely found people doing that, professionals and bloggers alike. I have to say TV Guide, Hollywood Reporter, and Washington Post were the ones that struck me as fair in any comments I read. Others, well, they drank the kool-aid.
I don't notice as much a necessary hammering on October Road except by TV Guide critics who appear to have taste. Not articles all over the place ranting and raving about it in the LA Times and other places. What, Defamer? Nothing to criticize their showrunner over? I guess Television Without Pity didn't get p'od by their folks so the hatemongering just isn't as strong. There are affronts to good tv like that and Criminal Minds not to mention the Next Pussycat Doll or whatever it is and Studio 60 is bringing down television? No, I'm afraid I found things that were funny and intelligent about the show and to me they far outweighed the growing pains. I knew plenty of people in high school that were conceited and obnoxious...that didn't stop them from being popular. Studio 60 is far from obnoxious to me. It had a heart and it had class and I think it's most certainly more deserving of my praise than NBC. That's what I know.
|
|
May 4, 2007 7:05 AM
|
Amanda Peet shrugs off talk that S60 tried to be too smart for the room. "It was definitely very ambitious," she tells TVGuide.com, "but a part of me wonders if, had it been an unknown writer-creator instead of Aaron Sorkin, we would have had more time to find our tone and focus. Because we were under a microscope from the moment we arrived, it was very difficult for the creators to feel free to follow the strengths of the show and see that through."
Ms. Peet, if it had been an unknown creator instead of Sorkin, the show never would have lasted as long as it did. The show never would have gotten the astronomical liscensing fee that it got and it never would have been able to afford to hire Matthew Perry, Bradly Whitford or you.
|
|
May 4, 2007 9:14 AM
|
|
I LOVED Studio 60. I was so excited to hear that Aaron Sorkin had a new project!! I worshiped the West Wing, so no matter what he made, I was going to love it. I found the characters extraordinary. I disagree about the cast not having chemistry. I though Matthew and Bradley, in particular, had fabulous chemistry and they were fun to watch. I loved Amanda Peet's character, Jordan, and her devil may care attitude. Even the supporting cast was great, and I was glad that they brought in some West Wing vets. I wish it would have been given the chance to grow and develop. Hopefully Sorkin will try again!
|
|
Aug 2, 2008 11:48 AM
|
|
|
