Comments | televisionary: Sorta Sorkin

televisionary

Sorta Sorkin

Sep 26, 2006 06:55

In case you were wondering what happened to me this week, I wanted to give the new programs a couple of episodes before I passed judgment on them. So, let me begin with the most anticipated program of the season, NBC's "Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip."Now, to be perfectly honest, hype isn't a good thing when it comes to a new television series. The ( Read more... )

Comments 9

janietrain September 26 2006, 11:15:57 UTC

I said something similar in my review. I'm concerned that the show is a bit too industry for Joe Kansas.

That being said, I liked the second episode more than I liked the pilot.

televisionary September 26 2006, 11:36:45 UTC

I think the industry issues are a concern. What does the general public know about the workings of the television world? Why should they care? What is it that makes us concerned?

Granted, Peet was a brilliant choice for the president because there are feminist issues that can be explored, and she comes off as both tough and likeable. A male in that role would not fly.

The problem is the show isn't really about Peet's character, it's about this series, and, as such, we wouldn't expect her to have all that much to do with this program on a regular basis, at least not as her job description is defined. I mean, how often does Robert Wright pop in to view "SNL" at 30 Rockefeller Plaza?

I think there would be much more juice if she was the focus and sometimes dropped in on this series, but also had to deal with all of the other programming on the network, as well as the sinister Weber character. They even referenced the thought I was thinking by using the quote from the first episode of CBS's "Mary Tyler Moore" "Ya got spunk. I hate ( ... )

beethatbumbles September 27 2006, 05:36:53 UTC

Noooo....I love Aaron Sorkin, ever since "Sports Night."

televisionary September 27 2006, 06:52:05 UTC

I suspect there's enough to keep this series moving happily through its first season. Really, I think they might have spread it too thinly, where there wasn't a lot of stuff that will be of interest to begin. We aren't dealing with the politics or the decisions that will lead to laws. We're just making a comedy show. I think the tone needs to reflect that and the "intensity" for its own sake needs to drop down a notch from TWW levels.

Sports Night. I think they need to go back and watch those tapes. That was closer to the tone they should adopt here!

beethatbumbles October 5 2006, 04:12:15 UTC

Okay, now that I've seen the first three episodes, I have to say, I'm really pretty disappointed in this show.

There isn't as much witty dialogue as Sorkin usually has--in fact, there's practically none. Few of the characters are likable, and Harriet is just plain annoying. The show takes itself too seriously, as you said, and it's not that funny, and its....kind of dumbed down.
I like Matt okay, I like Danny a lot, and I like Cal. But the characters are not as likable as Sports Night, where you identify and like the characters from the first episode on. If the show keeps up like this, I'm not going to watch it. It's not the Sorkin I identify with.

hamactor1 September 30 2006, 18:01:22 UTC

It does have its issues but I think it deserves better than a C. What worries me most is not the things that have already shown themselves to be minor problems, like the occasionally disgusting masturbatory glibness of Sorkin's dialogue, but more the things that look like they could become potentially big problems in the future if not handled...like...like, well, okay, Sorkin's dialogue, sure. And all else that comes with Sorkin. And Sarah Paulson and her wretched performance and her hateful bitch character. For one thing, Paulson doesn't get the hang of Sorkin's dialogue and the way it flows, and so she's always out of step with everyone else...just one reason the show comes to a screeching halt whenever she's on. Steven Weber's unrelenting dick of a character's a potential problem, and he needs redemption ASAP. I truly hope every episode doesn't follow the "Cold Open" formula of "Saturday:00 to Friday:00" 'cause that'll be bad too. Or if they start showing us too many sketches...or too few. I dunno...lotta ways this could go ( ... )

televisionary October 10 2006, 09:09:03 UTC

I think it got the C for the hype and because I expect more from Sorkin than this ( ... )

hamactor1 September 30 2006, 18:06:35 UTC

Oh...and re: Peet as the female net head and the show having enough story for the first season, any doubt re: those was erased in short order when Peet's pregnancy was announced right after the pilot aired. The timeline of her pregnancy dictates that if she goes full-term, she'll be ready to pop just as they're filming the finale. And that's gonna do WONDERFUL things for this season and next, and I think it'll be great for the show in a long-term sense. I'm excited about the immediate fallout when her character discovers her pregnancy ('cause I mean come on, they'd be stupid not to write it in) and announces it, then all the issues of maternity leave and who takes her place and what goes wrong in the meantime, etc etc etc. That in itself gives, I think, reason to stick with it for the season.

televisionary October 10 2006, 09:12:22 UTC

Oh... And it's not that Peet doesn't have enough story... it's that she isn't the central character of the story! I think she should have been. The central character is the show! Really, the most interesting thing about this is a young, attractive, intelligent and strong woman running a TV network, and what she has to deal with, from media, to co-workers, to affiliates, to sponsors... and with a pregnancy, that is going to be interesting.

Having all of the baggage of this group of people pretending to do a sketch comedy show cuts into what could be a truly interesting series.