But Was it Funny?

[shipperx]

Caveat:  I was doing other-- frustrating-- things last night, so my TV watching was mostly out of my peripheral vision.  I wasn't paying particularly close attention so this isn't some analytic post.  This is a purely superficial reaction.

Had Studio 60 on while working on a particularly frustrating project which I will bitch about later.  Anyway, I still like Matthew Perry.  But...uh... was the show within a show funny?  I'm asking.  Admittedly, I was distracted while watching, but I think this could potentially be a problem for this series.  They spend all this time talking about how brilliant Matt is as a comedy writer and how brilliant his sketch was.  But is Sorkin good at writing sketch comedy?  The problem is when having characters tout the brilliance or hilarity of a sketch, it sets up high expectations that I've yet to be convinced that Sorkin and cast can deliver.  Pirates of Penzance is supposed to be cutting edge comedy?  Really?  (Again, I'm asking).  Perhaps they would be better served leaving the show-within-a-show up to the audience's imagination.

Anyway, it seems to me that Studio 60 is a terribly serious drama about a comedy.  That could be brilliant, but (honestly) thus far it seems mostly like navel-gazing.  I really don't have a sense that the show within a show is funny, or that the blonde chick (what's her name?) is this brilliant comedienne that the show claims she is.  I assume D.L. Hughley can bring the funny.  But thus far it seems like the catch to this series may be that it's so darn serious about its subject matte, which brings the question of whether one should be so darn serious about television?  I suspect one's individual answer to this will effect whether or not one is drawn to the show.   Right now, it seems fairly...well -- again I remind that I was distracted by working on a very, very frustrating project and in a grumpy mood --  it seemed like a fairly humorless, somewhat preachy drama to me  (there's irony in that somewhere, isn't there?)  

Will give it another try next week when I can sit and watch without pulling my hair out while working on an impossible site plan.  Maybe I'll feel differently then.

ETA:  Oh and all the bitching about blogs and the internet... all I found myself thinking is that Sorkin still holds a grudge against TWOP.  I mean, yeah, TWOP has more than its fair share of assholes and idiots, but, really, producers who fight fandom fights --even carrying them onto a show, or (in this case) onto another show --don't strike me doing something smart.  I agree with whatever character said "stay away from the internet".   Do no taunt TWOP on TV.  
A) It just encourages them, and they're already big enough assholes  
B) It makes them feel important  
C) It makes you look thin-skinned  
D) Could potentially come off as bullying.  You're the one with a TV show and, it's your potential viewers wh have blogs.  Also, it's not nice to foster the 'dateless living with a house full of cats' stereotype.  It's irritating, actually. 

Also (sorta kinda) watched Heroes last night.  Again, I was distracted so I missed a whole bunch of stuff, but I was intrigued enough that I hit faux-VO to record it for a second viewing.  Initial reactions:  I flove the Japanese guy.  And the twist about the politico brother flying worked for me.  I'm interested enough about these two storylines that I'll watch what I recorded and will watch the show again next week.  It seemed weak in spots, but the flove of the Japanese guy and the interest in the flying brothers is enough to bring me back for more.

Comments

[dtissagirl.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that Studio 60 is a terribly serious drama about... a comedy.

I'm pretty sure it IS exactly that. Studio 60 is a big-ass DRAMA first and foremost.

I was truly surprised that we actually got the Gilbert & Sullivan-type music in the end. I was expecting to not see a single sketch EVER in this show, because that's how Sorkin always does it -- he seldom shows the actual events, just the backstage/consequences of it all.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

But is it wise to be so very earnest and serious about television? It just seems it should be something handled far more lightly (which was also a complaint I had about Sports Night.) I'm giving this show one more shot, but I fear that like Veronica Mars, it's going to be one of those 'beloved' shows that I'm not invested in.

[dtissagirl.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I don't think Sorkin is capable of NOT being earnest. He's gonna get preachy, even. I mean, he started the show with a LECTURE! I know some people who can't stand his shows exactly because of the "we're changing the world with our words alone" nature of this writing.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Which is, honestly, why I've yet to be a fan of a Sorkin show. I disliked Sport Night (it kept getting rave reviews and I thought it was awful. At times, I felt it was a parody of itself when it wasn't intending to be). And I was never a fan of The West Wing. I tuned into Studio 60 because it had an interesting premise and actors that I like, but I still don't seem to connect with Sorkin's writing style.

[dtissagirl.livejournal.com]

Well, I LOVE Sorkin because he's one of those writers who will put words and linguistics above anything else, and I sort of live for that. I have issues with the lecturing sometimes, but it never stopped me from completely adoring his shows.

[meko00.livejournal.com]

Sorry to bump in, but YAY! That's precisely why I love Sorkin too. I object to much of the actual content, but the sheer beauty of his language is a good reason to watch, IMO. Of course, I'm a linguistics geek too...

[dtissagirl.livejournal.com]

Linguistics geeks of the world, unite! I have such a thing for the way he writes that I got tear eyed over the Studio 60 pilot, *just* because I was listening to Sorkin dialogue again. :)

[rahirah]

To go back quite a ways, I think they could do worse than take a look at what the Dick Van Dyke Show did right...

[ladypeyton.livejournal.com]

I'm half convinced that Milo V is the one who can actually fly and that politico brother (whom I prefer to think of as EVIL politico brother) has the super power of stealing other people's super powers...but that may be a reach.

Loved Japanese Spock as well but Multiple Personality Girl annoyed the HELL outta me. Cheerleader Buffy was extremely fun, though.

Studio 60 made me laugh throughout the episode and the only reason I wasn't laughing too much at the very end was that we'd gotten the reveal early. We knew what the scene was going to be and as Matt says funny is only funny once.

I think you're right that we're never going to actually *see* Crazy Christians (that WAS you who said that last week, right?)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

My guess was that it's a shared power. The brother told the mom early in the episode that he and his politico brother were connected in ways she doesn't understand. So, it seems to me, it's either that the brother's power is that he senses things in his brother, or that the flying thing takes both of them to work. At any rate, I'm interested in finding out that answer.

And I, too, was suprised that we saw any of the show within a show. It seems when talking about how cutting edge and brilliant it the show within a show needs to be, that the best tactic would be to leave the show to the audience's imaginations rather than risk not living up to its hype.

[jerrymcl89.livejournal.com]

I'll be interested to see whether Tina Fey's new show, which shares essentially the same premise as "Studio 60", shows more of the actual sketches. Presumably, having been head writer at SNL, she'd have an advantage over Sorkin at creating those. I do think it's an issue for S60, though. You can't help but show at least a little bit of the material, and it has to credibly look like it might be as good as everyone backstage is saying it is.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The funny thing is that my reactions to the casting of these two shows is so very different. I really like Matthew Perry and so I tuned into Studio 60 for him, because I like him. I also like Tina Fey. But her show stars Alec Baldwin -- who I cannot stand, and yet... I fully intend to tune in because as much as I can't stand Alec Baldwin, he has been consistently hilarious on SNL. He's an obnoxious man, but he can turn that obnoxiousness into something funny. So I'm interested in seeing the combo of Fey and Baldwin. (Somehow likability doesn't always translate into watchability or vice versa, because right now, I don't know that the cast of Studio 60, who I largely like -- Perry, Busfield, Hughley, the guy who was Charlotte's husband on Sex and the City, Whitford, etc -- will be enough to keep me watching.)

[thedeadlyhook.livejournal.com]

I couldn't be bothered to check out Studio 60. Right from the get-go, it looked too freakin' earnest for me. I always have a harder time suspending my disbelief for the supposedly "realistic" shows than I do for the knock-down, drag-out fantasy ones.

The home life of the cheerleader character cracked me up. The dog! "We've all walked through fires." Hee.

[meko00.livejournal.com]

Can't think properly at the moment; sorry. Sorkin has a thing for Gilbert & Sullivan. Am quite ambivalent about Studio 60, actually. More thoughts later, I think...

[fishsanwitt]

I *cannot* get into 'Studio 60' - I love Aaron Sorkin - love his writing, *loved* 'Sports Night' - hee. But this show? Meh. I love the writing, but I don't actually like the show.

It makes no sense.

Jim really liked 'Heroes' - I couldn't be bothered, but I might give it another try - I just didn't feel very well yesterday and that could have contributed to my overall apathy.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I have to say the enthusiasm and endearing geekiness of the Japenese guy who discovers that he can control time is totally smile-enducing. You just want to hug the guy. And he was so funny as he tried to explain to his friend that he 'had to use his powers for good.' (Naturally, his friend thinks poor Hiro (his name) has read a few too many comic books.

[queenofattolia.livejournal.com]

Hm. What annoyed me last night were the very obvious, self-consciously actor-ly "scenes" (as in acting exercises) between Perry and Paulson (whom I still don't like) and between Whitfield and Hughley (although Hughley was as natural as Whitfield was not). I do think the serious tone is apt, though, because by all accounts SNL is and ever was a snakepit of egos, drug abuse, sexual roundelays, backstabbing and betrayals by the cast, producers AND network. If anything, Studio 60 seems like a rather watered down version of reality.

If anything is gonna deep-six this show, though, it will be the inpenetrable TV-insidery-ness of it all, which persists even if it is diluted. I think most people who watch TV are not fond of seeing how it's actually made, warts and all - I think they'd rather believe that all TV shows are little windows into stuff that is actually happening to real people named Buffy or Veronica or CJ or whoever.

That said, I'm not a Sorkin fan -- I too hated Sports Night, but that was mostly because I loathed the cast, and I thought The West Wing was very hit-or-miss, even when he was doing all the writing. Like you, I'm watching because I like Perry and was interested to see what Peet and Weber would do with their roles. So far I'm mildly hooked -- I only remembered to turn it on last night because I wandered into the TV room and was horrified to see CSI: Miami on the screen, and so switched the channel pronto. Not a good sign.

[kitmarlowescot2.livejournal.com]

Lol, only thing I watched yesterday was Antiques Roadshow and PBS thing on Marie Antoinette. TWOP must be so p*ssed off know.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Oh! I wanted to watch the Marie Antoinette thing! (I think I scheduled TiVo to pick it up. I'll have to check).