topher
Guest
Dec 1, 2024 5:46:47 GMT -4
|
Post by topher on Oct 2, 2006 23:56:29 GMT -4
And that one is called 40 Rock. Or, you can watch Larry Sanders, if you want something funny.
|
|
|
Post by twodollars on Oct 3, 2006 0:23:00 GMT -4
Loved, loved tonight's show again. It was nice to see a funny, smart show with actors who could act after the Heroes (so, so bad). Unfortunately, I expect Studio 60 is going to pull 1/4 of viewers of that crap.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 1, 2024 5:46:47 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2006 0:37:04 GMT -4
In which case why not set it at a high-profile TV drama? Sorkin at least knows that enviroment. Danny and Matt don't act like sketch comedy writers, they act like congressional aides or maybe talk show host producers.
I do think 30 Rock has a better chance of being a good show simply based on the previews: Alec Baldwin is playing an egomaniacal star (i.e. his life) and say what you will, but when Baldwin is on screen you can't ignore him. You can believe, based on his talent, that he would be the star of a SNL type show. On the contrary, I went through the first episode of this show not even knowing that the blonde girl was supposed to be Harriet who was supposed to be the breakout star of the sketch show. The characters are so limp, lacking in any personality or magic when they're on-screen (either as "themselves" or when we glimpse them in the show-within-a-show) that there's no way I can suspend disbelieve that they would be the "stars" of an edgy late night comedy show. Even in SNL's worst years there was at least one or two people (like Eddie Murphy and Joe Piscopo) who stood out and who had "It." The character of Harriet might as well be the coffee girl.
In Live From New York, they delve into the writing process, and it sounded fascinating. Writers would either pair off, or one writer and one star would pair off. They would goof off, go into late night writing sessions, go stir-crazy, play pranks, do blow and run around 30 Rock. Two people at a time are squeezed into cramped little offices high above NYC. Everyone would be trying to one-up each other to get a sketch on air, until the day everyone comes into Lorne's office. Lorne sits there with a bowl of popcorn and everyone pitches their ideas for him and the guest host. After the ideas are chosen, props and costumes and music are worked on, the writers rewrite the sketches, the actors try and rehearse, the order of the show is determined, all in two frantic days. Writers and actors would continually try to one-up each other, get their sketch on air, get a better timeslot, etc. Everything is a high-wire act.
I never get a sense of the frantic, crazy buildup like that from this show. On this show, some people kind of sit around and kind of vaguely talk about ideas over coffee and croissants in media rooms.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 1, 2024 5:46:47 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2006 2:24:24 GMT -4
OK, now I say, "Fire the costumer!"
What was that horrible black dress that the vile costumer put Miss Peet in for the after show party? It made Miss Peet's body look like a 50 year old menopausal woman with anorexia. I may not care much for Miss Peet's work on this show, but she is a very pretty lady.
And fire the hairdresser! Again, somebody hates Miss Peet! The hairdresser handcombs Miss Peet's hair into a ponytail and then twists it and secures the twist with a big ole bobby pin and then the hairdresser slaps a big thick black headband on her head. Were we to assume that Miss Peet's character was fresh from the gym where she did not wash or comb her hair after her Pilates session? Women in Jordan Whatherface's position in the corporate world are immaculately groomed. I swear, no one even washes Miss Peet's face or hair for this show.
And, not even that awful witch's hat made Miss Poulsen noticeable in her sketch. "Shine, Harriet, shine!" The wicked witch of the west wouldn't be caught melted away in that hat.
|
|
|
Post by mariposalabrown on Oct 3, 2006 10:20:05 GMT -4
I like Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry, but this show makes me cringe with embarassment for everyone else. Sarah Paulson going on with that Holly Hunter impersonation was so forced, and that one guy doing his Ben Stiller and Tom Cruise impersonations? No. I agree with others that said that showing the broadcast of the show doesn't work here. I would never ever watch that show, it looked so lame! Of course I'm going to give this show probably five more chances, but I really don't want to.
|
|
kafka
Guest
Dec 1, 2024 5:46:47 GMT -4
|
Post by kafka on Oct 3, 2006 11:50:26 GMT -4
I find this show profoundly annoying with its self-adoration and "wink-wink, see how clever, deep and complex we are?" attitude, not to mention its "we're too cool for school" industry-insider elitism.
There's such a smugness about the little inside quips. It's like the Sorkin Clique has created a secret coded language that only the Mean Girls are privileged enough to understand. For example, the dig at whatshername who was on the WW, who dated Sorkin and is the basis for the annoying Harriet character here. The majority of the American viewing public or the average Bob & Betty from Idaho isn't going to be reading TWoP, Defamer or any of these other sites which explains the inside jokes or industry digs. So there is a whole subtext of things which the average viewer is excluded from, while simultaneously being lectured on the stupidity of today's television. That seems insulting, condescending and arrogantly elitist all at the same time.
I'm not proposing dumbed down television which the average Joe will understand. But the smug elitism of Sorkin's cronies seems worse here than it did with the West Wing and, while the reasons are obvious or perhaps understandable, the arrogance grates.
On a more superficial note, my growing irritation isn't helped by Schlamme's habit of filming a good chunk of his scenes with people talking as they're walking. One gets this endless corridor of walk quickly, talk even more quickly, as other people pass by walking and talking just as quickly. I understand what it's meant to demonstrate but it annoyed me on the WW, and it's annoying me here.
When you add all that to my dislike of the over-hyped but one-dimensional Harriet character, the sum total is a show which makes me grimace. They just need to add in Alison Janney, whom I can't stand, and I would end up throwing something at the screen.
As for the skits within the show, they're bad. But, it's a measure of how godawful I think the real SNL is, that the S60 skits are actually *better* than the real SNL ones I caught this past weekend.
I might give it one more shot. But only with a bottle of Advil handy. On second thought, I think I'll skip it. Not worth the aggravation.
|
|
huntergrayson
Guest
Dec 1, 2024 5:46:47 GMT -4
|
Post by huntergrayson on Oct 3, 2006 20:15:04 GMT -4
I cracked up the most at Danny saying "can we have this conversation while we're walking?" Because they can't do it any other way. You know, if a scene is actually *good* and capable of holding our interest, you don't need to spice it up so much with the roaming camerawork. It's just a cheap way of making everything seem exciting and urgent when it isn't.
Also, Gilbert & Sullivan last week and commedia del'arte this week? Get real, Sorkin. Okay, it's fantastic that you know who Moliere is but it doesn't make it funny - having 3 or 4 people smart enough to "get it," doesn't automatically mean it's good.
I feel like the show constantly talks about how good the writers and cast are - Matt, Danny and Harriet, especially - but we never actually *see* it. They never showed Crazy Christians and are probably never going to and the sketches this week were all cluttered in a celebratory montage. I don't need to see Harriet's Holly Hunter impression, I need to see her kill on the show since she's sooo ubertalented.
|
|
eveschmeve
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,330
Mar 7, 2005 15:24:15 GMT -4
|
Post by eveschmeve on Oct 3, 2006 20:37:37 GMT -4
So, I couldn't get through this week's episode. The "Science, Schmience" skit was about it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: unless the comedy is authentic, the whole show falls flat for me. There were no jokes in the skit- it was basically, "Here are some crazy Wiccan/Christian/Muslim/Jewish people and their craaaaazy beliefs!" I totally agree that it sounds like West Wing, and not like a show about a sketch comedy show.
Which is a shame, since it features many actors who I love: Evan Handler, Nate Corddry, Lucy Davis (I flipped out and screamed, DAWN! when I saw her).
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 1, 2024 5:46:47 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2006 22:07:20 GMT -4
That's why I think 30 Rock has a chance, because while I think Alec Baldwin is an asshat there's no question he can hit out of the ballpark doing comedy ("Always! Be! Cobbling!"). They hired just a regular old actress to play the star of their sketch show and someone who has never proven she could actually be a sketch show star. It's like a show centered around an amazing soul singer everyone says is like Aretha Franklin and then when she sings she's like JoJo.
|
|
memememe76
Landed Gentry
Posts: 916
Jul 22, 2005 14:11:31 GMT -4
|
Post by memememe76 on Oct 9, 2006 1:44:58 GMT -4
The first half was blissfully wonderful and then it kinda dropped, and then HATE!
Why? Because Bradley Whitfield was barely in the first half and then he acts like an ass during the second half. Ugh, he sucks! Of course, I know everyone else will complain about Harriet (a lame plotline, but not annoying).
But with the exception of my hatred for BW (not Bawa, who I also hate), this was probably the best episode yet.
|
|