The Studio 60 "Wake" Post.

[caz963]

I said a while back that I was going to write some stuff down about Studio 60 and have a virtual wake.

Well, here it is. Pick your bevvy of choice and jump in anytime.



For a while now, I’ve been wanting to try to get my head around a number of issues to do with the show, the content, what happened to it, etc. and write them down, and I thought that now was as good a time as any to try to do that.

This is just a collection of random thoughts really, although I’ve tried to organise them a bit. There are bits and pieces here that I’ve talked about with friends - so forgive me if you’ve heard it before!

Please do jump in with comments and observations of your own - even if you weren't a fan. I always enjoy a good discussion, and long, rambling comments are more than welcome.

Brad fangirling is also welcome, but not obligatory! (I can't believe I said that...)

I know there are people on my f-list who aren’t S60 fans – and I want to thank them – because although they didn’t enjoy the show, they nevertheless recognised that I did, and we were still able to talk about it in a civilised and polite manner – two things which were sadly lacking on many of the fora and message boards in the rest of the so-called fandom – so thank you for that and for not saying “I told you so.” (Not that any of you would have, but you know what I mean).

All this is just my opinion. I’m not an insider, I’m not “in the know”, I’m just stringing stuff together based on things I’ve read, heard and talked about with friends, so please don’t take any of this as gospel, okay?

Okay. So - What went wrong?

Lots of things I suppose. I can’t help but wonder if NBC really knew what they were getting when they bought Studio 60. And I got the feeling at times that Sorkin wasn’t quite sure what he wanted to do with it.

I don’t know a great deal about NBC other than that it’s one of the major US TV networks, and that it’s been struggling in recent years, having lost a lot of its audience and that it’s now the fourth-ranked network.

I also know that they clearly couldn’t promote a TV show if their lives depended on it. I mean, seriously… who the hell came up with the straplines for those trailers? The stars are about to collide?? WTF? Not only was there only one real TV star in amongst the lot of them (because much as I love and adore Brad, I’m the first to admit that he’s not a household name in the way Matt Perry is) but WHAT THE HELL DID THAT MEAN??

So... NBC is struggling and decides to pay a small fortune to secure the latest TV show from Aaron Sorkin, widely regarded as one of the best writers for the medium. The West Wing had been a hit for them, so maybe he can provide them with another (badly needed) one.
Did anyone at NBC actually read the Pilot script? In the first five minutes we get that fantastic diatribe about the current state of television and how we’re all being lobotomised by cheap, crap reality shows. Exhibit A – new NBC supremo Ben Silverman’s recent comments about people wanting undemanding entertainment when they get home at the end of a long day at the office. Yeah. The 'Boobs' show will be that alright.
Looks like Jordan’s “dual masturbation show” can't be far away, now.

So NBC backs up the Brinks truck to secure the show, at the same time putting a clause in Sorkin’s contract that he has to be working several shows in advance. Not something he's well known for doing, and I can't help but wonder if that was a problem for him, a well-known "seat of the pants" type.

They get in a big television name – Matt Perry – bring in (eventually) one of the best actors on television – Bradley Whitford – the two of whom have chemistry that goes off the scale. They also strike gold with Nate Corddry, Steven Weber, Mark McKinney and Lucy Davis among others – but badly miscast (IMO) one of the female leads.
Word gets around quickly, the Pilot script is all over the internet, and the hype machine starts. You can’t buy this sort of publicity – and even if you could, NBC probably couldn’t have afforded it given what it probably cost them to secure the show in the first place!
The trouble with hype though, is that you can’t really control it. And also, that nothing, no matter HOW GOOD IT IS can EVER live up to those expectations.
Sorkin suffered two-fold on this one. The heights he reached in West Wing, the second season in particular, and most of it in general - raised the bar impossibly high. I’d defy anybody to have cleared it. So he’s a victim of his own success AND of all the hype that started immediately his ‘return to television’ was announced.

Nowhere – so far as I know – did Sorkin OR NBC say that he was going to save TV single-handedly from the state it’s gotten into – but that idea started to get around the media, and once something like that starts, well, it got mentioned a lot, didn’t it? The inevitable backlash started- before the show even went on the air.

Although the critical reaction to the Pilot was generally good, the knives really came out after the second and third episodes aired. But they weren’t all that bad, surely? I mean the Pilot for West Wing is still the best pilot I’ve ever seen, but Post Hoc… and A Proportional Response? Mr Willis of Ohio? They were okay – and still better than practically everything else on TV, but they weren’t In Excelsis Deo or Celestial Navigation. And while Season 2 of WW remains possibly the best twenty-two hours (well, lots of 42 minutes) of television produced in recent years, Sorkin had to write Season 1 first!

You’ve gotta love the meeja. Their favourite sport is putting someone up on a pedestal and saying they’re the best thing since sliced bread, and then turning on them like a pack of wolves. And don’t get me started on the ‘fandom’. I stopped going over to TWoP waaaay back before all this started, but I had friends who visited occasionally and who were stunned by the sheer amount of hatred and vitriol that was being heaped on Sorkin and their utter loathing for the show. And I – as I’m sure you did – kept asking myself why they were wasting their time watching a show they didn’t like?! I certainly don’t have the time to do that – but I guess Sorkin-bashing had become a sport for some of them – who will now undoubtedly be amongst the first to complain that there are not enough intelligent, well written shows on TV. Go figure.

I said before that you can’t control hype – and you can’t. But what the NBC PR department should have done, is to have cultivated a few influential journalists etc, who could have gone out there with more balanced opinions when the backlash really got going. Of course, NBC themselves weren’t going to say anything – that sort of thing always backfires – but it was obvious fairly on in the season that they weren’t showing it much support. Okay, so they picked up the back nine and ordered a full season, but I’m sure we all wondered if that had more to do with the cost of their not picking it up rather than any faith they had in the show.

The fact that they then started to refer to the show as a ‘romantic comedy’ made me wonder if anyone at NBC was actually, you know, watching it.

So yes, the “change of direction to focus on the romantic relationships”. Whose idea was that then? I guess we’ll never know whether it was something Sorkin wanted to do, or if it was something he was told to do by the network, in the same way as we’ll never know whether it was completely his decision to write in Amanda Peet’s pregnancy or not. And I’m sorry, but seeing as I’ve brought her up (again) I have to say that I blame her for some of this (!) If memory serves, her pregnancy was announced shortly before or shortly after the pilot aired? So the change of direction had to be made pretty early on. And whilst I’m nothing but pleased that she had a smooth pregnancy and a healthy baby, and of course support her right to have a child – when you’ve just been signed up as the female lead on a (potentially) twenty-two episode TV show … well, I don’t think anyone would dispute that her timing sucked.
I’ve definitely said this before (sorry) – but that “refocusing” detracted badly from the relationship on the show that we were all interested in long before it started – the friendship between Matt and Danny that we didn’t see nearly enough of, IMO. And the scenes we got with Brad and Matt in The Option Period, for example, and lately, in the K&R episodes only serve to remind me what we’ve missed out on. I think I’ll always be a bit miffed about that.

On the one hand, I can’t see someone of Sorkin’s calibre being forced into taking the show in a direction he didn’t want it to go. On the other… I guess NBC are paying his mortgage, so…

Then there was the crappy time-slot. NBC announces a Thursday slot for Studio 60 – and then heads for the hills when Grays is put opposite and shifts it to Mondays at 10. I'm not overly familiar with the workings of US TV - I do understand why NBC did what they did, but... they surely can't have expected Studio 60 to outperform a powerhouse show. So it wouldn't really have mattered which slot they'd put it in, would it? Surely all the channels have their "big" shows on at 9pm, so whichever night S60 ended up on, it would have been up against a ratings winner. I’d doubt the audiences for Grays and S60 had a big overlap anyway (okay, so that's me talking - I don't watch Grays!) and in any case, a poor showing in that timeslot would have at least had an excuse if NBC had wanted one!

But no, they ran scared and moved it to Monday, which is never a good night for most forms of entertainment, and shoved it back to 10pm. And if I saw one comment or post or quote about how a lot of the people who watched the show couldn’t watch it live because it finished too late and they had to get up for work next say, I saw hundreds. And given that the audience for the show was expected to be a desirable demographic (i.e, people with money) the likelihood was that the majority were going to be in work. This, I'm sure, accounts for the good DVR and download figures. Which, sadly, don't "count".

There’s also the fact that on WW, Sorkin and Schlamme had John Wells as their co-exec. Now, say what you like about Wells and what happened after Sorkin left, but I’d bet all the money in my pockets that he spent a lot of time dealing with the suits and leaving Sorkin and Schlamme to do what they did best – write and direct. On Studio 60 they were the sole execs and so would presumably have had to have gotten involved with all the crap they didn’t have to deal with last time around. I’d guess, simply because he didn’t actually direct all that many episodes, that a lot of that fell to Tommy, but still, I think it could have made a difference if they’d had a Wells fighting their corner.

So what were the detractors expecting from the show? Another West Wing? I can’t say, but I got basically what I expected. Something witty, funny, dramatic, thought-provoking - and Bradley Whitford to stare at.

(What? Give me a break - I got through almost half the post before I brought that up!:))

But there were similarities - and I don't just mean the recycled names or lines. The biggest thing, as far as I was concerned was that the show "Studio 60" was the backdrop for whatever drama was being played out, just as the White House was the backdrop for the drama and the character interaction on West Wing.
And the sense of "family" that Sorkin seems to like so much. You got that with Matt and Danny straight away, and then more characters were added, so that in the final episode, we get the "family" shot with the team on stage as Danny hands out the cigars and the pep talk.

Sure, there were problems – I enjoyed the show, but I’m not blind to the fact that there were things that didn’t work. Yes, a lot of the sketches weren’t that funny. But some of them were, and I'd imagine that it's not possible to produce a 90 minute show each week that's belly-laughs from end to end. Harriet drove me bonkers at times, and the famous Sorkinuity (someone should make that a real word!) was often in evidence. But the trademark snark and snappy dialogue was there, most of the characters and relationships had great potential and there were some important themes to be explored. Okay, so maybe those themes weren’t ‘important’ in the same way that fighting terrorism or eliminating child poverty are, but there are things that need saying about the state of the entertainment industry (which Sorkin brought up a few times in WW) , television in particular. It’s the most influential medium in the world, it’s where the majority of people get the majority of their entertainment, their news etc. (well, in the west, anyway), and though maybe it was a rather sweeping generalisation to have Wes say that current programming is mostly aimed at stupid 12 year old boys, I don’t think anyone can deny that, given the proliferation of channels, all with a lot of airtime to fill, we’ve become inundated with cheap programming, much of it “reality” oriented in some way.

(And I’m not saying that all reality TV is crap – it’s not and some of it is very good – but those shows are fairly few and far between.)

I guess what pisses me off is that in this world of multi channel TV, there wasn’t room for one show a week that wasn’t about a bunch of losers trying not to get thrown out of a house.

I’ve been asking a few friends over the last few days what the critics meant when they called Sorkin “preachy” – because I honestly don’t get that. I know they don’t mean he’s preaching in the religious sense and I couldn’t work it out – I was starting to feel that maybe I was too stupid to see it.

But then teresadivicenzo pointed out to me that I probably wouldn’t find Sorkin preachy because I share many of the same views and outlook, so that whatever he was saying wouldn’t feel “out of step” to me. Which I thought was an interesting way of looking at it that hadn’t occurred to me. And coloneljack suggested it was because there were people watching who didn't want to hear the "opposing argument" to whatever was their own standpoint. The liberals didn't want to hear from the religious right, and the religious right didn't want to hear from the liberals. Like that's a big surprise! I’ve sometimes found Sorkin's writing a bit sugary (the speech at the end of Crackpots makes me wince a bit for example), but I can’t ever remember feeling as though I was being “preached at”.

Then there was the oft-complained about fact that Sorkin was using Studio 60 to work through his own relationship issues. To be quite honest, I could have cared less. Although I do think there was too much of the Matt/Harriet stuff in the early episodes, it wasn't a bad storyline, and at the end of the day, that's one of the things I was watching for - good stories. But I'll concede that we did get hit over the head with that one more than once too often. I almost cheered when Danny said in the finale -

Because you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and he doesn't? Are you kidding me, who gives a damn?

AT LAST.

I’ll be interested to know what Mr Caz thinks of the show when he finally gets around to watching. He’s seen the Pilot, but no more (he’ll watch it when it starts airing here at the end of the month (finally!)) – and all he really knows about Sorkin is that he had a drug problem. But I’d guess that even when I do get around to telling him about KC "and all that", he won’t give a stuff either.

I was more fascinated by the idea that what Sorkin showed happening to Matt and Danny back after 9/11 was based on what actually happened to him and Schlamme on West Wing. In one of the script books, Sorkin says it was always their intention to leave after the 100th episode, which would have been mid-fifth season, but that his drugs bust hastened their departure. But he’s obviously not going to write there that they were forced out because TPTB didn’t like Bartlet being so liberal after 9/11.
That’s the extent of my knowledge on that one, thanks to digitalred93 and teresadivicenzo - but feel free to jump in if you can enlighten me further!

I said before that Harriet often drove me nuts – and she did. I do think it was a big mistake to focus so much attention on her faith so early in the show, and I could quite happily have beaten her senseless with a head of cabbage on numerous occasions. I thought her “God loves me and you’re going to hell” attitude, which I guess was meant to be a joke (I’m thinking of the thing in The Focus Group where the lights are going on and off) wasn’t coming across that way (if that is indeed how it was meant). BUT – that said, she was also funny and warm, she cared about her friends, and it was made clear that she was someone who was at times struggling to reconcile the principles of her faith with life in the 21st Century. She was a devout Christian who nonetheless had pre-marital sex. Some might see that as hypocritical. (Yeah, I’m not going there).

I loved the way, in K&R I, her response to the news about Tom’s brother, then about Jordan was a simple “alright” as she knelt down to pray. I thought that was classy. But then we had her God always wins as she drags Danny off to pray in K&R III which annoyed me, but which was very much in character. But Sorkin balances that with Danny’s assertions that if God loves me, why doesn’t he just fix it? – which I would guess is something that most people of faith (as well as heathens like me!) ask themselves frequently given the things that go on in the world. I did like the fact that she then admits that Danny has a good point, and at the end of the episode we have Danny finally humbling himself as he kneels at the glass.

Despite my reservations however, I did enjoy some of the arguments she had with Matt about her faith and his lack of it.

In the scenes between Tom and Captain Boyle, Tom’s desperation to save his brother at any price is balanced by the Captain’s argument that any ransom paid will be used to fund terrorism and will encourage further kidnapping of military personnel. Both men are right, but it’s not an easy choice, either way.

And then there was Jack Rudolph, the ultimate pragmatist. He was painted fairly black in the early episodes, the network suit who only cared about money and ratings – but it soon became clear that there was more to him than that. Sorkin could easily have washed his dirty laundry and made Jack the baddie, but he didn’t. Jack was as conflicted as any of the other characters were – possibly even moreso. He clearly did have a conscience, but had to push it aside frequently in order to do his job. He “loves reality TV” but doesn’t watch it. He refused to accept the fine imposed by the FCC because of the swearing in the news report and was prepared to resign over it.

So it’s always seemed to me as if Sorkin does at least try to show both sides of the coin, even if he doesn’t always succeed.

I know there were people out there who were angry about the way Sorkin brought up certain racial issues. I’m a white girl from Essex. I’m not going there because I can’t.

There were a lot of missed opportunities in the show, most of them due to the fact that plots and storylines had to be truncated or dropped altogether in order to wrap up the season once the axe had fallen. The biggest disappointment for me was that we never found out the reasons behind Danny’s relapse. I also think that his was one of the characters who suffered most from the “change of direction”. Not that I’m complaining about the fact that Brad at last got to play a more ‘romantic’ role, (yeah, pile of fangirly goo), but I do think that Danny had the potential to be a much darker character, and that was stripped away when he was paired up with Jordan so early on.

(Heh. I really shouldn’t mention the words “Brad” and “stripped” in the same sentence, should I? :))

I mentioned the FCC thing earlier – again, that was a storyline that just disappeared and which had a lot of potential.

Hallie Galloway, Head of ‘Illiterate’ Programming – annoying blonde chick who was supposedly brought in to keep Jordan on her toes, and perhaps even to replace her. Not that I mind in this case, but she also seems to have been given a one-way ticket to Mandyville.

I’m also guessing that Matt’s pill-popping would have been a much bigger and longer storyline had the show been granted a second season. But as it was, the ‘crash’ he was supposed to have experienced, according to Suzanne, never happened, which, considering that the final five episodes all took place the same night, is another example of Sorkinuity at its best. :)

I do think that Studio 60 took a while to find its feet, but there were definite glimpses in the early episodes of what it could become if it was given a chance. For me, the show hit the mark with The West Coast Delay - that was what S60 should have shown more of early on, the frenetic, behind-the-scenes stuff that surely goes on during a live TV show. Then I think from The Option Period on, it was much more solid - that show in particular featured some cracking dialogue and Brad/Matt interaction.

Sorkin delivered yet another wonderful Christmas episode, but then after the show returned, the next ridiculously long hiatus was immediately announced, and I suppose that was really the writing on the wall. Personally, I think NBC had lost faith and interest way before that, but that’s just my own opinion. We know Sorkin had a “play or pay” clause in his contract, so I guess they figured they might as well ride it out.

Who knows if they’d have ordered another season if the show had been cheaper to produce? We know the ratings in the Monday slot weren’t that bad compared to other shows that were renewed, and that it was consistently among the most DVR’d and downloaded shows. And while I think there were probably other factors involved – I mean, Sorkin choosing to bite the hand that feeds him was maybe not the best way to go – I guess it all comes down to money in the end.

When all's said and done, I liked the show and I’m sorry to see it go.

What did I like about it? (Apart from the obvious? :))

It was smart, funny and warm and I felt like I wanted to get to know (most of) the characters. The trademark quickfire dialogue that I love was very much in evidence, Brad and Matt were simply wonderful together and I adored Jack and Cal and Tom. I liked that the show tried to say something about the state of the entertainment industry, because although I no longer work in it, I'm still fascinated by it. The workings of a television show may not have the same significance as the workings of the White House, but given that more people probably watch Deal or no Deal than watch the news - and I use that term fairly loosely given recent events - I'd say there's a lot that needs to be said about the workings of television. And I think that perhaps, had the show been left alone and Sorkin been able to pursue the storylines he wanted, it might have broadened out that way.

As a teacher, I see, every day, the way kids are losing the ability to think for themselves and it scares the hell out of me. Because those kids will soon become adults and their kids won't know how to think for themselves, and voila - non-surgical lobotomies. I'm glad that someone far more eloquent than I has seen the way things are headed and felt the need to say something about it. And maybe that's me being "preachy", but it's my LJ so, you know, whatever.

Well. Those are some of my observations. I’m sure I’ll remember things I wanted to say after I’ve hit “submit” and maybe your comments will jog my memory.

*pass the bottle*

Comments

[zinke.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm only half-way through the post, but figured I'd better stop and get some of these thoughts down before I forget them all. So, first and most importantly:

Brad fangirling is also welcome, but not obligatory! (I can't believe I said that...)

Yeah, I can't believe you said that, either. *g* And now more seriously....

So... NBC is struggling and decides to pay a small fortune to secure the latest TV show from Aaron Sorkin, widely regarded as one of the best writers for the medium.

If I remember correctly, S60 was anticipated to go to one of the other networks, but NBC bought the rights from WB for a much higher price to secure it. Not only would that 'bidding war' have added to the show's overall cost problem, but also to the expectation problem.

There’s also the fact that on WW, Sorkin and Schlamme had John Wells as their co-exec. I’d bet all the money in my pockets that he spent a lot of time dealing with the suits and leaving Sorkin and Schlamme to do what they did best – write and direct.

Funny you should mention that; I was watching an ep of TWW last night and when his name popped up at the end I wondered the same thing. Yes, the show went in a... let say interesting direction after Sorkin left, but I do wonder if his influence was something that helped TWW get and keep it's feet. As you said, I think of Wells as more of a politics-player (excuse the pun) who might have been able to act as the go-between for the artists (Schlamme and Sorkin) and the suits (NBC).

More thoughts later when I have a chance to read the rest of the post....

[hooloovoo_42]

How can you expect any kind of discussion when you've just said everything I was thinking? Anyway, I'm off out for tea and the flicks, so I'll think about this while I'm eating raspberries and watching Shrek. And if I can't come up with anything more constructive, I'll just mention how amazingly fantastic Brad & Matt are together and that if somebody doesn't write another show for the pair of them, we're missing out on a treat.

This is not a gratuitous icon post, but it can serve a dual purpose!

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

I'm off out and want to try and put down some thoughts regarding the religion issue, but I need to be more alert when I do that because it's tricky. Plus I'm tired, so I stand NO chance right now. :)

I'm going to try and get across why for people of faith, and not the religious right who will never budge on anything, Sorkin can be testing at times. It's not what he says, it's HOW he says it. Despite the wonderful characters who hold faith very dear to them that have constantly been a feature of his writing there is a tone of disdain there at times, and I'm not certain whether that is his intent or whether he doesn't realise it's there. I suspect it's that latter and that this is a writer who, because of his personal experiences, is interested in exploring religion through his work. I read he is an agnostic Jew which in itself is interesting as this clearly indicates he is not 'anti-religion'. But we knew that anyway. It's only certain groups that have argued that one over the years, for reasons best known to themselves.

I'll have another think about just why sometimes I've sat and felt offended at what Sorkin has written and try and get that down. I know it's not because he's calling me on something. I know I've sat and asked God "Why don't you just fix it?" myself. My answer is often "I don't know" as well. The difference is, Sorkin is asking for proof. I just hold a belief and my faith. The problem often comes because of the debates he then provokes because they can often drift into the "You're an idiot for believing in God" territory which is deeply offensive to many, inluding me. Should he be held responsible for that? Of course not. But if he writes characters that imply that as well, then inevitably we will talk about his characters as being preachy and disrespectful. How much of his voice is in those characters, based on things he has said publicly over the years, also then affects our perception of his work.

I'd actually quite like to think this through for myself and also for others so they can try and understand that side when it doesn't come from a religious loon. But those are my initial thoughts, although poorly phrased because I'm EXHAUSTED.

Right, drink.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

The problem often comes because of the debates he then provokes because they can often drift into the "You're an idiot for believing in God" territory .

That's interesting. I guess that for someone like me who doesn't 'believe', I don't see that and it's probably natural that I don't. It goes back to what you said about my not finding him "preachy" because I'm 'coming from the same place' sometimes.

Please do come back on this (and the other things you've said) - I know we've talked about it a lot and it's fascinating.

[kayla7509.livejournal.com]

I’ve seen a lot of observations so far, and I’ve mainly refrained from commenting because it is equally hard for me to put my feelings into words and to keep from rambling. As you say, it’s hard to wrap my brain around a lot of it, so succinct commenting is very difficult.

I believe that NBC had no idea what they were getting with Studio 60. Maybe they thought they did, but were wrong. Maybe they are just idiots. I don’t know. It was never marketed well, or even with any insight to the actual show. Yes, the show had an enormous marketing budget, but it was completely squandered (save for those wonderful publicity photos). It seems that many viewers expected a comedy, or possibly an actual sketch show, and were turned off immediately. Others expected the characters to be constantly self-deprecating and not take their jobs seriously because they worked in television. I don’t know what the loonies over at TWoP wanted. Anyway, I never really felt like I was misled by my expectations (well, until the romantic comedy nonsense). I don’t really know what all of this means, but I personally enjoyed the show from beginning to end, even when flaws were evident.

Also, I think your observations are right on the money about John Wells. He dealt with the suits, while Aaron and Tommy handled the creative stuff. I’m not a big fan of his, but I think he handled that role well, but the arrangement worked well for a time. I did wonder if there was some 9/11 backlash on TWW (being stranded in the wilds of Oklahoma, I’m not privy to that information). I think it would have been absolutely insane to expect them to change the core beliefs of their characters, but obviously there are plenty of nut-jobs roaming the halls at NBC.

[kayla7509.livejournal.com]

A couple other things…(Yes, I hit the character limit and had to break this into two comments!!)

(And I’m not saying that all reality TV is crap – it’s not and some of it is very good – but those shows are fairly few and far between.)

Maybe I’m being an apologist here, but I never really felt like AS was saying this. I think his point was that crap-TV is crap. I do think that some programmers out there feel like they are making the next Extreme Makeover: Home Edition but end up with Age of Love. They talk themselves into believing they are inspiring people, when they are actually just televising cat-fights. Of course some of them just go there outright. I’m not the best one to weigh in on this argument, because, for the most part, no reality TV appeals to me. That’s not to say it’s all bad, though.

I thought her “God loves me and you’re going to hell” attitude, which I guess was meant to be a joke (I’m thinking of the thing in The Focus Group where the lights are going on and off) wasn’t coming across that way (if that is indeed how it was meant).

See, I thought that was funny. I guess I should qualify that with “as long the others in the room realized she was joking”. I think one of the merits of the Harriet-character was that she could joke and be open about her religion. For the most part, I loved the way she was portrayed. Yes, she and Matt needed to give it a rest, or at least come to an understanding, but other than that I liked her. A lot of people were really pissed off at her “The Bible says homosexuality is a sin”/“judge not lest ye be judged” but I think it is very real. I think there are a lot of Christians out there that are trying to reconcile the two views, but honestly find that they just don’t know what to think. I did have issues with her you-must-be-on-your-knees-to-pray mandate. You should absolutely show respect and you should absolutely be focused, but there is no reason that you can’t pray sitting down, standing up, or standing on your head if you wish. The prayer is the important part. Plus, she did not need to “teach” Danny how to pray. She just needed to offer to say a prayer with him. That irked me a little, too.

I do think that Danny had the potential to be a much darker character, and that was stripped away when he was paired up with Jordan so early on.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again (and probably many times down the road). I swear AS was saving a lot of the dark-Danny stuff for season two. The Jordan-thing didn’t help matters, but I really feel like this was supposed to be Matt’s season, and Danny’s was coming up next. It’s a shame that we didn’t get much of either.

Because those kids will soon become adults and their kids won't know how to think for themselves, and voila - non-surgical lobotomies.

You are absolutely right, and sometimes we all need a little “preachy”-ness. Especially when the intent of the sermon is to make us think for ourselves, rather than towing the party line.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I think you're on the money about Harriet. I said I'd forget to say some things, and what you said about her attitude being funny provided the other people in the room realised it was supposed to be funny was absolutely right. I thought it was supposed to be funny, and liked the fact that she could make and take a joke about her faith.

I also agree with you about what would have happened in S2. The first part of this season was definitely a bit light on Danny - maybe Sorkin was giving us - and Brad - a break from Josh, I don't know. I also heard rumours of a bit of back-stage "divaish" behaviour on the part of some of the other cast members... so again, who knows how that may have affected things.

And in response to your first comment (and feel free to weigh in as much as you want!) I didn't comment elsewhere either, because I've been writing this for over a week and wanted to try to get things straight in my head.
Damn Sorkin for making us use our brains! :)

[zinke.livejournal.com]

Coloneljack suggested it was because there were people watching who didn't want to hear the "opposing argument" to whatever was their own standpoint.

The above bit really started me thinking, and I have to say that I think she may have a point. I think I've said this other places as well, but I feel like there is less and less opportunity for debate these days - real debate as exchange of differing ideas meant to inform and stimulate, rather than arguing to convince and convert.

Especially when the intent of the sermon is to make us think for ourselves, rather than towing the party line.

Is it possible that the very fact he is presenting in this manner - showing multiple viewpoints in an effort to stimulate thought rather than dictate it - is the reason people feel his messages are 'preachy'? That rather than have a quick, one-minute spot to present a singular point of view, he takes an hour-long episode to look at an issue from multiple angles, not necessarily getting to an answer?

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure it's that. You don't have that many viewers turn off their TV because of that. Plus one then has to make the assumption that the viewing public are incapable of grasping complex issues. I'm fairly sure that most people tuning in for a Sorkin show are perfectly capable of dealing with what he throws at them.

Put the religious right who have their one opinion and won't budge aside - those are the people who the argument that coloneljack makes applies to. The rest of the viewers will be open to debate and ideas, or at least a reasonable amount of it. Some will just want entertainment for an hour after a long day at work, although a Sorkin show probably isn't the best place to look for that. Having said that, he should primarily be in the business of entertaining you for an hour above all else, which is something he himself has said on many occasions. If the drama isn't good and the characters aren't engaging, people just won't watch. Period. Doesn't matter how interesting the issues are. Watch C-Span if you want that.

I'll tell you why I feel it's preachy. It's because Matt always has the last word. It's because the arguments Harry presents are weak - *I* can make stronger ones. She doesn't articulate her faith and what it means to her well. She does it in an inappropriate manner. It's unrealistic. This happens week after week after week. This is a character that Sorkin has said he wanted to hold up as a positive image of Christianity, so I don't doubt that his intent was good. But if you are watching a show where the main character constantly belittles the faith of another character and she doesn't get the opportunity to present a strong articulation of her beliefs - and believe me when I tell you I personally know NOBODY who falls to their knees to pray like that - then you question the motives of the writer. It's not a debate. It comes across as a bit-by-bit, little-by-little chipping away of something you hold dear. Yes, I believe at times that Matt was supposed to come across as a jackass, but Sorkin has to realise that if he does this all the time then it seems that his voice is behind this and that he has an agenda. At best, his research on this one is just lousy.

[zinke.livejournal.com]

Sorkin has to realise that if he does this all the time then it seems that his voice is behind this and that he has an agenda. At best, his research on this one is just lousy.

I think my situation is similar to Caz's in that I am not a 'religious' person so much as a 'spiritual' person; I certainly believe in the existence of something/someone greater than ourselves. My not being a part of an organized religious faith is likely why I didn't pick up on how Sorkin may have sounded to others. I did find that the ongoing battles between Matt and Harriet became rather one-note and tiring very quickly, and perhaps that speaks to Sorkin's lack of understanding as well.

But how does one adequately research a particular form of faith, and beyond that, how can one write about that faith without coloring it with one's own views? I'm not saying that Sorkin was right, or that anyone doesn't have the right to be put off by the way Harriet and her faith were portrayed, but that it is an immensely challenging thing to put aside one's biases, particularly with something as personal as religion and faith.

I think that's why it is a subject so often left untouched - it's almost like the third rail. I give Sorkin credit for attempting to tackle it in the first place, despite not doing such a good job with the execution.

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is challenging and the potential is there to upset many people. That's why a writer should do their best to get it right. I would be very surprised if Sorkin spoke to many devout Christians at all. You don't have to immerse yourself in theological literature - just ask a few people to glance over your draft or run your ideas by them.

A writer shouldn't have to worry about upsetting some people, that's always going to happen, but if you're going to attempt to tackle something so complex and sensitive then it's imperative to try extremely hard to bring across through your writing that you have given it the gravity of thought and respect it deserves. Whilst I am delighted, and always have been, that Sorkin approached this minefield at all, he came very short of portraying a character in the postive manner even he hoped to when he spoke about Harry at the beginning of the series.

[kayla7509.livejournal.com]

It's because the arguments Harry presents are weak - *I* can make stronger ones. She doesn't articulate her faith and what it means to her well. She does it in an inappropriate manner. It's unrealistic.

This is absolutely true. Although, as a general rule, I did like Harriet as a character, I think I liked the intent of the character more. I gave AS points for trying, and tended to overlook the failures. I'm the first to admit it's not a good view to take, but I did in this case.

I personally know NOBODY who falls to their knees to pray like that

Well, I do. They are all those I'm-closer-to-God-than-you types who like to put on a show. That's why I resented Harriet trying to force it on Danny. I didn't feel like the Harriet-character was meant to use her faith in that way. Obviously everyone who prays on their knees is not this kind of person, but I felt like she would have made a better point had she asked if he'd like her to pray with him.

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

I’ve sometimes found Sorkin's writing a bit sugary (the speech at the end of Crackpots makes me wince a bit for example), but I can’t ever remember feeling as though I was being “preached at”.

That's because he isn't preaching at you. Look at it this way. How would you feel if I wrote a series where the lead character took several little digs at your atheism. Add to that the fact that they wouldn't let you finish your argument. And that this argument wasn't the best presented. You didn't get the opportunity to show why this is important to you and why you believe what you believe.

Then come back next week and let's do it again.

It's like if I repeatedly crashed your LJ and lumped you in with fanatical Atheists and constant pointed out to you that your belief holds no weight with me because you have no proof and I jolly well want proof. As you can't provide it I am, therefore, obviously right and you are wrong.

You are now not allowed to reply to this comment. No matter how much you think what I've just posted is crap. Or any other comment I make about this.

That's what I watched every week and felt. And a lot of people, possibly not just of the Christian faith, will have watched it and felt the same way. There is an assumption that we all have blind faith and that we have no rational thought about this. My most common answer is "I don't know." I question God all the time. Know what? I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd be more worried if I *didn't* question him. If I didn't, that would mean he didn't exist.

These are vastly complex debates and they have to be respectful and take into account feelings and deeply held beliefs. I'm not convinced Sorkin succeeded. I think he wants to, but that there is a little part of him that so badly wants to shout at me and say: "You're a smart lady. You're educated. You work with scientists? HOW can you believe this crap? It's just stupid. You're stupid."

And if *I* feel that way - imagine how people who aren't fans of his feel.

::hands LJ back::

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I question God all the time. Know what? I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd be more worried if I *didn't* question him.

I think the day we stop asking questions about anything and everything is the day we should all pack up and go home.

But you're right - he's not preaching at me, as you said the other night when I asked for your opinion about the 'preachiness' - because as I said, I honestly didn't get it. I wasn't trying to be obtuse or ask a question I knew the answer to - it was a geniune desire to understand the appellation.
And as you said, it's partly crappy research on Sorkin's part, or perhaps even no research. I'm sure a writer as gifted as he is is perfectly capable of crafting better arguments- and maybe he was trying to cram too much in.
Perhaps that's partly what I felt when I wondered if he quite knew what he wanted to do with the show. So much to say, he couldn't decide what to say first!

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

The thing is, and I can't explain this, when you ask me about this it isn't condescending. When I watch Sorkin, it can be. And yet you are both tackling the same subject and coming at it from the same point of view. That indicates to me that there is a difference in attitude. As I said, I can't explain it. I don't think it's down to the fact that you're friends with me and you do ask pretty much the same stuff as Sorkin does through his work. A big difference really is that you don't end every review on your LJ or every IM with "I am right on this, your belief is twaddle." That's what happened every week in this show. It became, as Zinke said, tiresome.

I have to confess that I was always doubtful of whether he knew what he wanted to say in this show - and I'm not just talking about religion here. There was too much crammed in and the writing wasn't tight enough at points. It was as if he knew he had *something* to say about certain issues, but even he wasn't sure quite what. It was an exploratory work, a work in progress. That's never going to be good enough to succeed, even though it can be an interesting exercise in itself at times.

The other annoyance of mine was the "illiterate programming". I watch reality TV, I enjoy it. It's like any other genre in the sense that there is good and bad. He must have known that this would jumped on as a banner by many. And I must say that I was put off reading much of fandom because I became annoyed by seeing that phrase crop up - it was used in a way that implied I was dumb for watching this type of programming.

Yes, Sorkin tried to put across the point the there is good and bad, but once you use such inflammatory language, subsequent arguments are lost in the noise and it seems as if you only included the counterargument to show that you had bothered to consider that point of view. It was there as a 'liberal' courtesy, if you like.

He's a smart guy. He knows the noise that this would cause. On this one, he is wrong. It's not all rubbish. And to suggest that people who watch it are dumb, which again when you tie in what he has said publicly on the genre, is intellectual snobbery at its worst.

And whilst I'm at it, Mr. Sorkin, not all of us wear PJs and some of us are VERY qualified to comment on your work. Don't push me or I might just take it off the internet and into a prominent journal or two where my words will carry far more weight. Trust me when I tell you that the internet is a preferable medium for my views.

[digitalred93.livejournal.com]

Warning: my thoughts are all over the place due to a variety of reason.

Being that it's July 4th, I've relegated my icon use to the above in celebration of the U.S. opening a can of whoop-ass on you right-ponders a while back. ;-)

Seriously though... I agree with a great deal of what you say. Especially in regards to NBC not having a clue and the absence of Wells having quite a bit to do with the situation. Wells has an excellent reputation amongst writers for protecting their creative ideas from network intervention.

Also, I think Perry's part was too highlighted. No, I'm not saying this because I'm a Brad fan. Quite a few folks I know in RL have complained about it. In the West Wing you'd rarely have a focus on just one character. I think that extra time on Perry took away from setting up many other storylines and more importantly, giving the series the sense of ensemble that TWW had.

Though I have no concrete proof, I do think that Perry was instrumental in pushing Sorkin to play Matt dark. That's not what we (nor Brad, I suspect) expected to happen -- based on the pilot.

On the religion thing... in SW Missouri people really do NOT want to listen to the other side. They'll smile politely but they've made their minds up. Sorkin took an issue that he delicately tiptoed on during TWW and shoved it in people's faces. I personally appreciated it because I share his attitudes being a fellow Agnostic Jew. Nonetheless, if the polling data is to be believed, I'm in the minority.

One thing you didn't mention... the advent of DVR +7 ratings. The proliferation of DVRs reached critical mass this last year. DISH TV, for instance, gives its subscribers a DVR for $1 a month. Everyone I know has one. If you look at the DVR +7day ratings for the series, it was 20% higher. Those are excellent ratings. Problem is, that also means no one is watching the commercials. Who here honestly didn't think they were being primed during THE OPTION PERIOD for massive product placement?

Zucker had no vision. Reilly had no control over publicity. But I do think we need to blame WB also. I can't point to evidence but I'd be willing to be that the product placement issue, and who got to get what piece of that pie, was the final nail in the coughin (sic)[Just recently rewatched Cold Open].

Moving forward, I hope that this experience hasn't driven a wedge between Schlamme and Sorkin. They're a talented team. They just need a sharp producer with brass balls. If what happened with Wells wasn't shades of Wes, I'd like to see the three of them team up again.

[zinke.livejournal.com]

in SW Missouri people really do NOT want to listen to the other side. They'll smile politely but they've made their minds up.

I've found this on the East Coast as well. When it comes to politics and other such 'polarized' topics, people seem to have taken to talking at each other rather than to one another. It's one of those things that makes me just a wee bit nutty. *twitches*

As

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<b?caz</b>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>in SW Missouri people really do NOT want to listen to the other side. They'll smile politely but they've made their minds up.</i>

I've found this on the East Coast as well. When it comes to politics and other such 'polarized' topics, people seem to have taken to talking <i>at</i> each other rather than <i>to</i> one another. It's one of those things that makes me just a wee bit nutty. *twitches*

As <b?Caz</b> said above, the day we stop thinking critically and for ourselves is the day Big Brother moves in and George Orwell's science fiction becomes reality.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the product placement thing - Option Period was a HUGE pointer. I think we've talked about this before, but it strikes me that the advertising industry has buried its head in the sand over this one. The technology for "TV on demand" has been available for some time now - Sky TV in the UK has been showing pay per view movies and sporting events for years and regularly shows "multistart" programmes, so it's only a matter of time before this becomes the norm. I remember reading, quite a few years ago, about how viewers would be organising their own viewing schedules - it's starting to happen now, but the industry hasn't caught up. Advertisers have had a long time to think about this, advertising revenues are falling all the time, but they don't seem to have arrived at a solution.
Of course, I guess what they really need to face up to is this - PEOPLE DON'T LIKE COMMERCIALS! So of course, given the opportunity we won't watch them!

Although, saddo that I am, despite the fact that I have all the DVDs, I nonetheless watch the TWW reruns on a Sunday evening on the TV, commercials and all...

[hooloovoo_42]

I nonetheless watch the TWW reruns on a Sunday evening on the TV, commercials and all...

The commercials are the time for having a pee and checking the dinner isn't burning or finding another bottle of wine to go with the Brad ogling ;-)

[caz963.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but if you get too drunk, you'll be ogling cross-eyed, which might not be the best idea...

[zinke.livejournal.com]

*crosses eyes*

*stares at icon*

Nah, he's pretty hot even when he looks blurry and kinda backwards.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

*snort*

Yeah, but I still prefer sober-ogling. You get the full effect that way! :)