This show is no good. This show is only for people who are devoted fans of Aaron Sorkin, who claim that people who don't get the show are not intelligent.
It has nothing to do with intelligence. Studio 60 is sub-par at best, and devoted Sorkinites should stop and realize that their emperor, to quote the old saying, has no clothes.
A lot of comments on this board have ratings of 10 stars - but those were posted immediately after the pilot episode aired, which was indeed very good TV. Everything after the pilot went downhill, much like this show's ratings.
1. Studio 60 suffers from an overdose of "Sorkin dialogue" (fast-paced talking about numerous subjects at once while seeming to be in a rush, sprinkled with witty metaphors aka "walk and talk"). The dialogue is not hard to follow, but it comes off as smug, like a "I'm smart and I know it" kind of way. Also, every single character talks that way. There is no diversity among the way they talk, so you don't believe any of the characters - you just see them speaking lines from Sorkin's script. They're all the same, even DL Hughley, and we know he doesn't really talk like that.
2. The show-within-a-show is not funny. Many claim it isn't supposed to be, as if in the world where Studio 60 takes place, it's considered good. That is a poor excuse at best. When we're slammed over the head with characters always saying how great a writer Matt Albie (Matthew Perry) is, we expect to see great writing. We don't. When we're slammed over the head saying how talented and brilliant comedy-wise the "big three" are (Sarah Paulson, DL Hughley, Nate Corrdry), we expect to see their characters be hilarious on the sketch show. We don't. We can't just be told they're hilarious. We have to see it to believe it. It's TV. Having actors play fantastic comedic actors is a very difficult thing to pull off for anyone. Something like that just doesn't work.
3. Amanda Peet is miscast, mainly because of her age. She's like 35 and already president of a major television network? Other than that, she's the only character you want to root for because she has to prove herself and fight censors. Matt and Danny already won - they returned triumphant to the show. Why root for them? They're already golden. What's the big deal if they screw up? Crises on the show don't seem to matter much because of that. Only Peet's character will get in trouble, but she's not the main focus of the show.
Also miscast is Sarah Paulson as Harriet, Matt's ex-flame. Everyone on the show fawns over her - how much they respect her talents, her beauty - everything about her. Huh? Where is that? When a bad joke was written, Matt says, "It's bad...but she will pull it off. She always does." She can? From what we - the audience - has seen, Harriet isn't that amazing. Like above, we're told that she is, but we just don't see it. And Sorkin spends A LOT of time focusing on her and Matt, and it's clearly the weakest point of the show.
4. Lastly, I'm liberal and have no love for the Religious Right, but for the love of cupcakes, I get it, Sorkin - you don't love the Religious Right, either. Stop rubbing our noses in it. We know you have beef with them, but I'm trying to be entertained by your show, not view your personal anger at the Right. I agree with your views, but just like when I hate it when conservatives put their views in the media, I hate it when liberals do it, too. Just let me watch TV.
It has nothing to do with intelligence. Studio 60 is sub-par at best, and devoted Sorkinites should stop and realize that their emperor, to quote the old saying, has no clothes.
A lot of comments on this board have ratings of 10 stars - but those were posted immediately after the pilot episode aired, which was indeed very good TV. Everything after the pilot went downhill, much like this show's ratings.
1. Studio 60 suffers from an overdose of "Sorkin dialogue" (fast-paced talking about numerous subjects at once while seeming to be in a rush, sprinkled with witty metaphors aka "walk and talk"). The dialogue is not hard to follow, but it comes off as smug, like a "I'm smart and I know it" kind of way. Also, every single character talks that way. There is no diversity among the way they talk, so you don't believe any of the characters - you just see them speaking lines from Sorkin's script. They're all the same, even DL Hughley, and we know he doesn't really talk like that.
2. The show-within-a-show is not funny. Many claim it isn't supposed to be, as if in the world where Studio 60 takes place, it's considered good. That is a poor excuse at best. When we're slammed over the head with characters always saying how great a writer Matt Albie (Matthew Perry) is, we expect to see great writing. We don't. When we're slammed over the head saying how talented and brilliant comedy-wise the "big three" are (Sarah Paulson, DL Hughley, Nate Corrdry), we expect to see their characters be hilarious on the sketch show. We don't. We can't just be told they're hilarious. We have to see it to believe it. It's TV. Having actors play fantastic comedic actors is a very difficult thing to pull off for anyone. Something like that just doesn't work.
3. Amanda Peet is miscast, mainly because of her age. She's like 35 and already president of a major television network? Other than that, she's the only character you want to root for because she has to prove herself and fight censors. Matt and Danny already won - they returned triumphant to the show. Why root for them? They're already golden. What's the big deal if they screw up? Crises on the show don't seem to matter much because of that. Only Peet's character will get in trouble, but she's not the main focus of the show.
Also miscast is Sarah Paulson as Harriet, Matt's ex-flame. Everyone on the show fawns over her - how much they respect her talents, her beauty - everything about her. Huh? Where is that? When a bad joke was written, Matt says, "It's bad...but she will pull it off. She always does." She can? From what we - the audience - has seen, Harriet isn't that amazing. Like above, we're told that she is, but we just don't see it. And Sorkin spends A LOT of time focusing on her and Matt, and it's clearly the weakest point of the show.
4. Lastly, I'm liberal and have no love for the Religious Right, but for the love of cupcakes, I get it, Sorkin - you don't love the Religious Right, either. Stop rubbing our noses in it. We know you have beef with them, but I'm trying to be entertained by your show, not view your personal anger at the Right. I agree with your views, but just like when I hate it when conservatives put their views in the media, I hate it when liberals do it, too. Just let me watch TV.