Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

[Brillig]

Watch. This. Show.

Aaron Sorkin may be a occasionally recovering addict, but the man writes like no one else on television. There are some seriously high expectations for this show, and after watching the pilot, I think this one delivers, the only problem being that like Sports Night, it may just be too smart for the audience. Apparently it lost out to the CSI:Miami premiere (for the love of whatever, aren't Americans tired of that formula yet?), and I suppose Mondays aren't the best spot for a Sorkin high-wire act... still, the Sorkin-Schlamme combo grabs your attention just like the old days.

Here's hoping this one survives.

[Raiders Army]

Funny, cause I just watched it about half an hour ago. My wife thought it was kind of meh, but I liked it especially for a pilot episode. The dialogue was sharp and the acting was good. It also had a nice setup to bring Danny and Matt onboard.

[Celeval]

Very solid. We saw the pilot early on Netflix; and liked it last night as well - Mondays should be a good television night, with How I Met Your Mother, Heroes, and Studio 60.

[Joe]

I liked it as well. My only complaint is that as with many of Sorkin's characters, some were not distinctive at all and could be interchangable and a little boring.

[Brillig]

I thought about asking you which characters were undistinctive, but then I realized you'd respond with "that guy... and that other guy." :) I can't argue with that!

It's always a problem with a new show, but I think they did a pretty good job of delineating the main characters... there are some fuzzy edges around the peripheral players, but I think the core cast were well established.

[Bearcat729]

I liked it as well.

It actually made me realize what I had been missing the last few seasons of The West Wing.

[Maple Leafs]

I really enjoyed it. I'm not sold on the female lead (she's a network president at what, 35?) and some it was a little uneven, but the dialog was pretty good and the premise is interesting. I'll give it a shot for sure.

[Brillig]

I really enjoyed it. I'm not sold on the female lead (she's a network president at what, 35?) and some it was a little uneven, but the dialog was pretty good and the premise is interesting. I'll give it a shot for sure.

Actually, there was something written up on the Amanda Peet role - to quote my local TV columnist (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/09/18/DDG2VL68U51.DTL)

For those who will quibble with young and beautiful Peet playing an idealistic and powerful network president, it's wise to remember that the TV industry is filled with women just like her in real life and the Jordan McDeere character is allegedly based on Jamie Tarses, who ran ABC and was younger then than Peet is now.

[Lathum]

We just thought it was whatever. If it doesn't get better in the next few episodes I'll probably dump it. I'm a fan of Amanda Peat (sp?) but I just didn't find her believable.

[kcchief19]

It met my high expectations. I've thought both Matt Perry and Brad Whitford are both underrated, and it's nice to see them in roles where they are not overshadowed by other parts of the ensemble.

I'm a little worried that the ensemble is a bit larger too large. SportsNight had six main characters, The West Wing essentially had six main leads plus typically about four supporting characters. This shows looks to be comparable in number. The difference is that The West Wing started with the six main characters and slowly eased background characters into the plot. Dule Hill and Stockard Channing weren't even in the first few episodes, and Janel Maloney didn't develop her character fully until really the second season.

As brilliant as I think Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme are, they rely way too much on the same ideas over and over again. The pilot of The West Wings and Studio 60 both shared similar plotlines, and the blast on Pat Robertson was very similar to a blast on Jerry Falwell delivered on SportsNight. I gave him a pass when he recycled lines and plots from SportsNight on The West Wing because I knew he was always behind and I figured he thought nobody saw SportsNight. I'm hoping future episodes are fresher, but I still loved it.

The TV critic for the KC Star was lukewarm on the show, but he did think Judd Hirsch should polish his mantle for his best guest starring actor for his on-air meltdown speech.

[jbmagic]

Very solid. We saw the pilot early on Netflix; and liked it last night as well - Mondays should be a good television night, with How I Met Your Mother, Heroes, and Studio 60.


You can see the first episode of Hero now at Yahoo
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/tv/top/heroes/?http://tv.yahoo.com/feature/fall06/?d=503

[ISiddiqui]

I enjoyed the pilot very much. I thought the dialogue was pretty snappy and liked Perry and Whitford as the bad boy writer/director who come back. Stephen Weber as the network exec was an inspired choice, imo. And somehow, Peet works as a President of a network.

Looking forward to future episodes.

[scooter]

My wife and I really enjoyed it as well. I thought the chemistry between Perry and Whitford was excellent. I did have some trouble following who everyone was, but we did TIVO it so I'm going to go back and watch it again. Maybe next time I can figure out who's the boss (and who's the boss' boss, etc.).

I just appreciate that it's television that isn't reality, a competition, or a crime drama. We'll keep watching.

[MalcPow]

I enjoyed the first show as well, although really, couldn't they have at least used a different font for the credits and scene setups, it's quite literally exactly the same as the West Wing's. I also found the dialogue in some spots eerily similar to West Wing show's I've seen (never saw SportsNight), especially the opening scene about freedom of speech meaning that sometimes you'll be pissed off, this was basically a wholesale excerpt of the flag burning WW episode.

But again, I enjoyed it. I like the pace of a Sorkin show, and always find myself watching when one comes on. My only worry is that he's simply traded one soapbox for another, and that Studio 60 will just be new characters rehashing the same charted territory. But I'll be watching/buying dvd's either way. :)

[GrantDawg]

I really enjoyed it. I'm not sold on the female lead (she's a network president at what, 35?) and some it was a little uneven, but the dialog was pretty good and the premise is interesting. I'll give it a shot for sure.


I hope that isn't the consensus, because I loved Peet's character. I thought she was immediately likable, and easy to root for. I figured she would be some kind of uber-bitch. I'm glad they went another direction because that has been over-done.

I loved the first episode. I didn't want it to end.

[Draft Dodger]

Much better than I thought it was going to be. I also was kind of meh on Peet's character and I was really looking forward to Sarah Paulson after just watching her in Deadwood, but she just seemed a bit off. Just the first episode though - once things get rolling, I think it's going to be very enjoyable.

[Ksyrup]

Much like that Friends knock-off The Class, I refuse to watch this show simply because I've been subjected to so many commercials for it that I hope it fails. Not that this is the kind of show I'd watch anyway, but I couldn't turn the channel quickly enough after DoND ended.

As far as the comment above about CSI, we still enjoy the original, although it's no longer "must see" every week. But the spin-offs (Miami and NY), we've never even considered watching. Miami I assume is because David Caruso is a dickhead who can't act, but I can only assume we don't watch the other just because it's overkill. But apparently not everyone thinks that way.

[wade moore]

I'm not reading this thread because I TiVO'd it and haven't watched. But just the fact that the guy who played Josh on West Wing is in it was enough for me to at least grab the pilot and check it out.

[Raiders Army]

I was confused a little as to Amanda Peet's character. She's the president of NBS? And who is the guy that she brought into her office to talk about hiring Danny and Matt?

[Brillig]

I don't know if Heroes will be that good a show or not... I'll have to wait and see, I suppose. That said, it has to be a better lead-in in terms of audience character than Deal or No Deal. The downside is if the show tanks, it won't be a lead-in at all.

Your Studio 60 character cheat sheet:

the corporates
Steven Weber, "Jack Rudolph", the big boss
Amanda Peet, "Jordan McDeere", NBS president, works for Jack

in charge at Studio 60
Bradley Whitford, "Danny Tripp"
Matthew Perry, "Matt Albie"

the talent at Studio 60
Sarah Paulson, "Harriet Hayes"
D.L. Hughley, "Simon Stiles"
Nathan Corddry, "Tom Jeter" <- practically MIA in the first episode

backstage at Studio 60
Timothy Busfield, "Cal Shanley", executive producer

[Barkeep49]

I was confused a little as to Amanda Peet's character. She's the president of NBS? And who is the guy that she brought into her office to talk about hiring Danny and Matt?

NBS is clearly based off of NBC. At NBC you have the Network President and a Chairman of the Network besides the owner of the network (GE at NBC; Ed Asner at NBS). So Amanda Peete is in-charge except that she's not.

Also Brillig: Timothy Busfield's character, Cal, is the show's director not executive producer.

[Passacaglia]

I didn't watch. Seeing Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet in the same commercial brought back horrible memories of The Whole Nine Yards.

[molson]

The hardest thing about writing fiction is making different characters' dialogue sound distinctive. Sorkin absolutely sucks at this, and I just can’t get past it in any of his shows, even though he’s otherwise talented.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I didn't watch. Seeing Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet in the same commercial brought back horrible memories of The Whole Nine Yards.

If you actually paid to see that movie then that's just some cinematic karma that you're going to have to live with for a long, long time...

I'm sorry.

[Toddzilla]

This just makes me miss Sports Night all the more....

[BrianD]

I didn't watch. Seeing Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet in the same commercial brought back horrible memories of The Whole Nine Yards.

That movie didn't qualify as bad enough to be good?

[cuervo72]

Amanda Peet naked on a staircase certainly wasn't bad...

[Draft Dodger]

Amanda Peet naked on a staircase certainly wasn't bad...

I knew that's what you were going to say.

[Celeval]

Much like that Friends knock-off The Class, I refuse to watch this show simply because I've been subjected to so many commercials for it that I hope it fails. Not that this is the kind of show I'd watch anyway, but I couldn't turn the channel quickly enough after Deal or No Deal ended.

... does ... not ... compute ...

Oh shite, there's another Howie Mandel commercial, mute it.

[Brillig]

The hardest thing about writing fiction is making different characters' dialogue sound distinctive. Sorkin absolutely sucks at this, and I just can’t get past it in any of his shows, even though he’s otherwise talented.

*shrug* I'm not seeing this. Although if Sorkin uses his favorite monk line again ("I don't know exactly how to please you, Lord, but I think the fact that I want to please you, pleases you") in this one he should be slapped with a carp.

I don't see the problem with the characters though. Maybe you should have your ears checked?

[Ksyrup]

... does ... not ... compute ...

Oh shite, there's another Howie Mandel commercial, mute it.

For me, the difference is that I was already watching DoND, so the commercials were more informational about when it would be on than trying to draw me in like the other two shows I mentioned. Plus, the DoND commercials were (or seemed to me) a lot shorter, because people know about the show already. The others were far more prone to lengthy (and repeated) promos about the show, with the same scenes being shown over and over (or, in the case of The Class, the same stupid spelling bee or playground commercials).

[Pyser]

from working in television, the first episode completely threw me off because they changed professional titles.

it took me FOREVER to figure out who perry and whitford were playing, in part because they kept referring to one as a "director".

i finally figured out that perry is the head writer of the show, and whitford is the "director"...which is really a show-runner in real television (think lorne michaels). a television director, at least for live shows, sits in the booth and calls the shots, which is what the guy who didnt pull the plug on the rant was, really...though he was more acting as a technical director, since he was working the switcher.

anyway, for a show that is supposed to be based on "realism", i couldnt figure out for the life of me why they changed real titles.

[Anthony]

how is that show "Heroes"?

[jbmagic]

how is that show "Heroes"?



Pretty Good. Goto Yahoo TV and watch the first episode now before it premeires next week.

[GrantDawg]

from working in television, the first episode completely threw me off because they changed professional titles.

it took me FOREVER to figure out who perry and whitford were playing, in part because they kept referring to one as a "director".

i finally figured out that perry is the head writer of the show, and whitford is the "director"...which is really a show-runner in real television (think lorne michaels). a television director, at least for live shows, sits in the booth and calls the shots, which is what the guy who didnt pull the plug on the rant was, really...though he was more acting as a technical director, since he was working the switcher.

anyway, for a show that is supposed to be based on "realism", i couldnt figure out for the life of me why they changed real titles.


What? Whitford was the "director" for Perry's movie (which Perry wrote). He was supposed to direct Perry's new movie, but couldn't because of he couldn't be bonded. They both were writers on the show originally, and they are now the Executive Producers.

[Pyser]

What? Whitford was the "director" for Perry's movie (which Perry wrote). He was supposed to direct Perry's new movie, but couldn't because of he couldn't be bonded. They both were writers on the show originally, and they are now the Executive Producers.

that makes infinitely more sense. i thought they wanted him to direct the studio 60 show, too. thanks.

[saldana]

It met my high expectations. I've thought both Matt Perry and Brad Whitford are both underrated, and it's nice to see them in roles where they are not overshadowed by other parts of the ensemble.

I'm a little worried that the ensemble is a bit larger too large. SportsNight had six main characters, The West Wing essentially had six main leads plus typically about four supporting characters. This shows looks to be comparable in number. The difference is that The West Wing started with the six main characters and slowly eased background characters into the plot. Dule Hill and Stockard Channing weren't even in the first few episodes, and Janel Maloney didn't develop her character fully until really the second season.


The TV critic for the KC Star was lukewarm on the show, but he did think Judd Hirsch should polish his mantle for his best guest starring actor for his on-air meltdown speech.

this is a little bit of an unfair comparison (studio 60 to the west wing), because the way the West Wing started and was intended, and the way it ended up are totally different things....when that show came on the air, it was supposed to be about Rob Lowe and Moira Kelley's characters, with Jed Bartlett being an ancillary character along with all the others...after it was on a few weeks and everyone remembered how bad of an actress Moira Kelly is, and realized how well Martin Sheen was testing, they shifted gears on the fly and reworked the stories and characters to expand it into the awesome show that it was.

studio 60 is starting as an ensemble show from the beginning, so i think that is why you are seeing the peripheral characters being included right away, where in the WW they came on much later...why would bartlett need an assistant when he was only supposed to be a guy that only made incidental appearances?

[timmynausea]

I liked the West Wing, but I can't stand Matthew Perry, so I've avoided this one so far.

[Butter]

I think it's odd how the supposed main character of this sketch comedy show is apparently a hard core Christian selling a CD of spiritual music. Just a ham-handed way for Sorkin to browbeat us about religion ever few weeks, I guess.

Also, the whole Whitford's character being a recovering drug addict is way too much like the late John Spencer's role on West Wing.

I enjoyed the pilot overall, but I also felt Amanda Peet didn't fit into the President role very well. I'm willing to give it a few more weeks, just because I like most of the cast pretty well, esp. Perry, Whitford, Weber, and D.L. Hughley who I think could be extremely funny in this.

[ISiddiqui]

I think it's odd how the supposed main character of this sketch comedy show is apparently a hard core Christian selling a CD of spiritual music. Just a ham-handed way for Sorkin to browbeat us about religion ever few weeks, I guess.

Actually it is supposed to be based on Kristen Chenowith (sp?) who Sorkin actually dated and then released a Christian CD and went on the 700 Club... which apparently led to a falling out between them.

[cschex]

Also, the whole Whitford's character being a recovering drug addict is way too much like the late John Spencer's role on West Wing.


I'm pretty certain that Whitford is supposed to be a stand-in for Sorkin and his well-publicized drug problems the last few years. This show is very much "auto-biographical" for Sorkin and Schlamme (and Perry as well, who had his own issues with pills, I believe).

[Butter]

This show is very much "auto-biographical" for Sorkin and Schlamme (and Perry as well, who had his own issues with pills, I believe).

I'm coming to realize that a bit more after ISidd.'s post.

[Draft Dodger]

Actually it is supposed to be based on Kristen Chenowith (sp?) who Sorkin actually dated and then released a Christian CD and went on the 700 Club... which apparently led to a falling out between them.

I did not know that. interesting.

[BrianD]

I finally got a chance to watch this show and I quite liked it. There was some real substance to the story and the characters were interesting. I love the dialog on Sorkin shows as well. There is always such a nice mix of important discussion and attention paid to meaningless details. When Perry was telling the National Anthem story and the guy asked who the Dodgers were playing...perfect.

Someone upthread made the comment that all of the characters seemed the same and nobody was distinct. I actually think this is a good thing. Characters in TV so often become stereotypes or caricatures of their initial quirks that they cease to be like real people. Sorkin's characters may not be easily distinguishable by their lines, but they seem like real people.

Having Felicity Huffman in the pilot was a nice touch as well.

[BrianD]

dola,

I forgot to mention that I actually liked Peet in this role. I've never been a big fan of hers, but she had a nice combination of smarts and humor to make me believe she could be in that position.

Nice to see Matthew Perry get a chance to flex his acting muscles as well. He seems to have much ability that didn't get to shine through on Friends.

[timmynausea]

I liked the West Wing, but I can't stand Matthew Perry, so I've avoided this one so far.

An hour after I said this, we ended up watching the pilot, which was rerun on Bravo last night. It was decent. Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet were much more tolerable than expected.

[Joe Canadian]

http://blogs.defaker.com/defaker/

NBC is apparently running a fake celbrity gossip site to deal with the in-show characters.

[Ksyrup]

FYI re the ratings...


NEW YORK -- The fall season opened Monday with two of the most anticipated series premieres of the year off to a so-so start.

NBC's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" and CBS' "The Class," both of which commanded substantial financial commitments from their respective networks and received generally positive reviews, didn't quite burst out of the gate but managed to put up competitive figures in their time slots.

The Aaron Sorkin-written "Studio 60" got a good lead-in with the season premiere of the hit game show "Deal or No Deal," which averaged 15.7 million viewers and a 5.0 rating/13 share among adults 18-49 in its two-hour season premiere -- about the same as last season's Monday performance.

"Studio 60," whose ensemble cast includes Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet and Bradley Whitford, couldn't keep up the pace at 10 p.m.. The drama set behind the scenes of a late-night sketch show delivered 13.4 million viewers and a 5.0/13 in adults, according to data released Tuesday by Nielsen Media Research.

While it was up from what "Medium" did last year in the time period, it also showed a significant erosion in its last half-hour, according to preliminary ratings released Tuesday: down 15% between 10-10:30 p.m. (14.6 million vs. 12.2 million) and down 16% in the demo (5.3/13 vs. 4.6/12).

[Ksyrup]

By the way, be sure to tune in to the October 16 show when Sting will be the musical guest, playing selections from his upcoming album of 16th Century Lute Songs! :eek:

[Maple Leafs]

I'm really interested in how (if?) they'll handle the actual comedy scenes. So far we've only seen bits of the "bad" comedy like the Bush opening and the cartoon, which was pretty devestatingly realistic. But at some point, if we're supposed to believe that some of these sketches are actually witty and clever and biting, we're going to have to see them, won't we? Can they pull that off? Or do they take the easy way out and just cut to shots of the audience laughing and cheering.

[timmynausea]

I'm really interested in how (if?) they'll handle the actual comedy scenes. So far we've only seen bits of the "bad" comedy like the Bush opening and the cartoon, which was pretty devestatingly realistic. But at some point, if we're supposed to believe that some of these sketches are actually witty and clever and biting, we're going to have to see them, won't we? Can they pull that off? Or do they take the easy way out and just cut to shots of the audience laughing and cheering.

My guess is that there won't be very much. Sorkin's shows always focus about 95% on the behind the scenes element. Reading this reminded me of several West Wing scenes that would show Bartlet behind the scenes getting ready to make a huge speech and/or tv appearance, and right as he walked out on stage or got in front of the camera the scene would end.

It will be interesting to see, though. If they could actually add some funny skits, it'd really add another dimension to the show.

Right now I'm curious as to how interested I can be in the success or failure of a TV show when I'm so accustomed to seeing Josh Lyman deal with terrorists and the economy instead of fart jokes and network execs. The stakes just seem a lot lower.

[Joe Canadian]

I'm really interested in how (if?) they'll handle the actual comedy scenes. So far we've only seen bits of the "bad" comedy like the Bush opening and the cartoon, which was pretty devestatingly realistic. But at some point, if we're supposed to believe that some of these sketches are actually witty and clever and biting, we're going to have to see them, won't we? Can they pull that off? Or do they take the easy way out and just cut to shots of the audience laughing and cheering.

It would be funny if the skecthes on Studio 60 were funnier than those on SNL, wouldn't it. :)

[Joe Canadian]

FYI re the ratings...


NEW YORK -- The fall season opened Monday with two of the most anticipated series premieres of the year off to a so-so start.

NBC's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" and CBS' "The Class," both of which commanded substantial financial commitments from their respective networks and received generally positive reviews, didn't quite burst out of the gate but managed to put up competitive figures in their time slots.

The Aaron Sorkin-written "Studio 60" got a good lead-in with the season premiere of the hit game show "Deal or No Deal," which averaged 15.7 million viewers and a 5.0 rating/13 share among adults 18-49 in its two-hour season premiere -- about the same as last season's Monday performance.

"Studio 60," whose ensemble cast includes Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet and Bradley Whitford, couldn't keep up the pace at 10 p.m.. The drama set behind the scenes of a late-night sketch show delivered 13.4 million viewers and a 5.0/13 in adults, according to data released Tuesday by Nielsen Media Research.

While it was up from what "Medium" did last year in the time period, it also showed a significant erosion in its last half-hour, according to preliminary ratings released Tuesday: down 15% between 10-10:30 p.m. (14.6 million vs. 12.2 million) and down 16% in the demo (5.3/13 vs. 4.6/12).

Part of the problem is that it's up against CSI: Miami, which won the night on Monday. CSI: Miami, while probably one of the worst hour long dramas on television is apparently very popular... CBS says it's the most watched show in the WORLD :).

[Barkeep49]

Well we could easily see 30 seconds of a sketch that was pretty amusing. Making it part of a 2 minute or 5 minute sketch is of course much harder.

[GrantDawg]

Part of the problem is that it's up against CSI: Miami, which won the night on Monday. CSI: Miami, while probably one of the worst hour long dramas on television is apparently very popular... CBS says it's the most watched show in the WORLD :).


I really don't get the "CSI" obsession. That show never worked for me.

[Joe Canadian]

I really don't get the "CSI" obsession. That show never worked for me.

I enjoy Las Vegas, though I missed much of last season... but Miami is one of the worst written and acted shows in existance.

[Brillig]

Part of the problem is that it's up against CSI: Miami, which won the night on Monday. CSI: Miami, while probably one of the worst hour long dramas on television is apparently very popular... CBS says it's the most watched show in the WORLD :).

Proof positive that the world is in very very bad shape :p .

Regarding the comedy bits, I'm also looking forward to seeing how they handle that. My gut suspicion is that most of it will be handled as 'guest host monologue' type situations. Just like 'Love Monkey' would have been a great cross-promotional opportunity to highlight new artists, Studio 60 could be a similar tool for writers and comedians. If Sorkin can fit his ego round that ;)

[Draft Dodger]

It would be funny if the skecthes on Studio 60 were funnier than those on SNL, wouldn't it. :)

funny? yes. difficult? no.

[spleen1015]

I finally watch the pilot for this last night. I thought the saw was great. I don't think I have laughed as much at single hour of tv, ever! Hopefully the goodness keeps up.

[Draft Dodger]

and hopefully the ratings pick up...

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, Studio 60's ratings were down 16% from last week. NBC's spin on this is that it's up 10% from last year in the same time slot, which was held by Medium - a show that didn't even make the new season's schedule (it looks like it will be back mid-season after Sunday night football ends).

[wade moore]

Yeah, Studio 60's ratings were down 16% from last week. NBC's spin on this is that it's up 10% from last year in the same time slot, which was held by Medium - a show that didn't even make the new season's schedule (it looks like it will be back mid-season after Sunday night football ends).

That's unfortunate, I really hope it sticks.

There are just some good shows that don't make it though.

There was a show last season, "InJustice" that I really liked that appears to not be back this season for instance.

[Peregrine]

I am really enjoying this show so far, I hope the ratings pick up.

[jonesz]

I really like the show, but thought this weeks episode was a bit of a step back from the first. It was almost like they built the fake show up so much in the episode that the payoff for the real show at the end just didn't meet the bar for me. I could have done without the musical number and would have preferred a taste of Crazy Christians instead.

That's the main thing I'm struggling with with this show as of right now. It's not really about the "skits", but more about the people behind the skits. IMO they still need to have strong skits to show as well.

That being said, I think this show has tremendous potential once it gets in a rhythm and I'm looking forward to seeing what the rest of the season has to offer.

[Draft Dodger]

I also have to say, Matthew Perry has been surprisingly good. He's not playing Chandler, which is refreshing. I wish Bradley Whitford would follow suit, but whatever.

[Glengoyne]

I also have to say, Matthew Perry has been surprisingly good. He's not playing Chandler, which is refreshing. I wish Bradley Whitford would follow suit, but whatever.


I think this matches my assessment nicely. I missed the first episode, and spent the first several minutes wondering when the writers would figure out that they weren't depicting people in the Whitehouse.


I think the jury is still out, but since it follows Heroes and I don't care for CSI Miami, I'll be giving this show a chance.

[Ksyrup]

I thought this note about Whitford on defamer.com was somewhat interesting...


"Meanwhile, Studio 60 was down 16 percent from its premiere, a ratings drop-off that might force Aaron Sorkin to finally address the network's note that he find a way to replace Bradley Whitford's cocaine addiction with a superpower."

[Crapshoot]

Good show, but America prefers its Two and A Half Men or "Survivor 13 - stuck in Wisconsin" - it doesn't seem likely that it will last.

[Draft Dodger]

I haven't watched Heroes yet. any good?

[wade moore]

I haven't watched Heroes yet. any good?

I'd call it promising... It won't live up to what i'd really hope it to be... or like cthomer5000 said to me, as good as if it was on HBO... but i think it will be an enjoyable show.

[spleen1015]

I haven't watched Heroes yet. any good?

It's not bad. I'll watch the next episode.

[Neuqua]

I didn't enjoy Heroes at all. Some of the acting was as bad as I've ever seen on any primetime show.

I'm really enjoying Studio 60 however and hope that it is given more chances.

[wade moore]

I didn't enjoy Heroes at all. Some of the acting was as bad as I've ever seen on any primetime show.

I'm really enjoying Studio 60 however and hope that it is given more chances.

You must not watch a lot of primetime shows then ;).

[Neuqua]

You must not watch a lot of primetime shows then ;).

Outside 24 and Nip/Tuck, I don't.:)

But seriously, I do not want to post any spoilers so I won't comment directly, I will watch the show a couple more weeks to see if it improves at all.

[wade moore]

Outside 24 and Nip/Tuck, I don't.:)

But seriously, I do not want to post any spoilers so I won't comment directly, I will watch the show a couple more weeks to see if it improves at all.

I'm not saying there wasn't some bad acting, I'm just saying there's some REALLY terrible acting on primetime TV. I think this at least has a somewhat unique premise.

[Bee]

I liked Heroes and didn't think the acting was that bad for tv. Generally, I've been pretty pleased with the shows I am recording. Much better than last year. The only one that I killed after the first round was Shark which I thought was utter crap. Smith is also on short notice, but I'm giving it another week or two.

[wade moore]

I liked Heroes and didn't think the acting was that bad for tv. Generally, I've been pretty pleased with the shows I am recording. Much better than last year. The only one that I killed after the first round was Shark which I thought was utter crap. Smith is also on short notice, but I'm giving it another week or two.

I've eyed three for this season. Studio 60, Heroes, and Friday Night Lights. Everything else that partially interested me (like Jericho and Smith) conflicted with something else and I don't have a duel tuner TiVO. So far I'm happy, we'll see how Friday Night Lights turns out.

[Bee]

I'm not holding out much hope for Friday Night Lights, but it might surprise me.

[wade moore]

I'm not holding out much hope for Friday Night Lights, but it might surprise me.

Agreed. I'm actually also enjoying "Two-A-Days" on MTV... it's not great, but for a 20 minute show (cause that's what MTV 30 minute shows are) it's interesting and it gives you HS football without it being scripted as it is on FNL.. that's what worries me about a sports based TV show, the fact that the game results are all decided, etc...

[Joe Canadian]

Agreed. I'm actually also enjoying "Two-A-Days" on MTV... it's not great, but for a 20 minute show (cause that's what MTV 30 minute shows are) it's interesting and it gives you HS football without it being scripted as it is on FNL.. that's what worries me about a sports based TV show, the fact that the game results are all decided, etc...

???

In a TV show... everything is decided.

[wade moore]

???

In a TV show... everything is decided.

Two-A-Days is a reality show that follows Hoover High School in Alabama. So, it's not pre-determined.. yes it happened before we saw it, but it happens based on the game, not on what writers decide.

[Brillig]

Back on topic... I was a little disappointed by this week's installment of Studio 60 - it just didn't seem as strong as the first one. The musical number was actually a clever conceit, in my opinion, being funny without having to be an actual comedy skit. Also, I'm not unfond of Gilbert and Sullivan. And there was nothing to kvetch about in the performances, generally solid throughout, but I give a gold star to Matthew Perry for his solliloquy on Harriet. The ending was classic, and probably more than a smidge autobiographical, giving a quick flash on how Sorkin probably feels each week.

So with all the good, where's the bad? There just didn't seem to be as much dramatic tension in the show as I expected. Certainly, this isn't the West Wing, so you don't have world-changing events as an easy out. But my gut says Sports Night hit the drama button better than this. Hopefully the stories will get better as we get to know the characters more.

[Barkeep49]

I think that's a pretty good recap of the episode brillig.

[Joe Canadian]

Two-A-Days is a reality show that follows Hoover High School in Alabama. So, it's not pre-determined.. yes it happened before we saw it, but it happens based on the game, not on what writers decide.

Yeah I know. My point was more that you said you don't like "fake" sports shows specificly because they have a predetermined outcome. But all "fake" shows, sports or not, have their outcomes determined.

[wade moore]

Yeah I know. My point was more that you said you don't like "fake" sports shows specificly because they have a predetermined outcome. But all "fake" shows, sports or not, have their outcomes determined.

Ah, gotcha...

For some reason it bothers me more with sports than other themes. Irrational, I know, but that's how it is for me...

[bhlloy]

I still enjoyed the second episode, but it was definitely a dropoff from the first one. Didn't enjoy Heroes at all, the acting was terrible and the storyline seems very cheesy. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Kidnapped yet... it's been done a million times before but I've thought it's been pretty solid so far.

Oh and Shark blew... a huge disappointment

[wade moore]

I still enjoyed the second episode, but it was definitely a dropoff from the first one. Didn't enjoy Heroes at all, the acting was terrible and the storyline seems very cheesy. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Kidnapped yet... it's been done a million times before but I've thought it's been pretty solid so far.

Oh and Shark blew... a huge disappointment

I'm getting way sick of the shows that take the same story and carry it through every episode (lost, prison break, 24, etc) so I didn't give Kidnapped a chance...

[Joe]

well kidnapped dropped 20% in viewership and 1.28M viewers from week 1 to week 2. so its not looking good anyway.

[Bee]

I didn't check out Kidnapped. I didn't like 24, so I was pretty sure Kidnapped wasn't going to do it for me either.

[Draft Dodger]

I know TV is not the most original medium anyway, but if I was one of the people behind Thief, I'd be sueing the pants off of the people behind Smith

[Joe]

I know TV is not the most original medium anyway, but if I was one of the people behind Thief, I'd be sueing the pants off of the people behind Smith

If I was Ray Liotta, I'd be sueing the pants off of my plastic surgeon. WTF happened to his face?

[Draft Dodger]

that's a good question as well

[wade moore]

I know TV is not the most original medium anyway, but if I was one of the people behind Thief, I'd be sueing the pants off of the people behind Smith

Ah, Thief... a show I wish would have been given more of a chance...

[Butter]

If I was Ray Liotta, I'd be sueing the pants off of my plastic surgeon. WTF happened to his face?

I think he asked for the "lumpy potato".

[sterlingice]

It would be funny if the skecthes on Studio 60 were funnier than those on SNL, wouldn't it. :)

You're not setting the bar all that high these days...

SI

[sterlingice]

The TV critic for the KC Star was lukewarm on the show, but he did think Judd Hirsch should polish his mantle for his best guest starring actor for his on-air meltdown speech.

Actually, as soon as I heard what the show was going to be about, I knew it would reminded a lot of, well, of all things, a speech by Krusty about how comedy isn't funny any more, back when The Simpsons was still good.

SI

[sterlingice]

Anyways, sorry to be a bit late to the party but I just got to my recorded first couple of eps and watched them as a pair tonight.

I feel that the writers are holding back a bit right now, feeling out the characters before launching into things. It has a very familiar feel, more similar to the West Wing than to Sports Night. Again, I think it's the product of not entirely knowing where it wants to go yet. That said, the show has tremendous potential and if they try to cut it partway before the first season before it has a chance to build a following, it will be a huge mistake.


SI

[spleen1015]

I watched the 2nd episode last night. While not a sgood as the first, it was still pretty good. I hope the show lasts for a few years. I don't look at tv like a lot of you guys. I just want to be entertained and I can't tell if this show is similar to the West Wing or to Family Feud. I just like watching it.

[panerd]

I thought the Bushes vs the Clintons in the family fued actually sounded like a pretty funny idea for a skit. I have enjoyed this show so far and am surprised at how much I like Perry's character. I have always like Whitford and am lukewarm so far on his performance on this show. I also like Steven Weber, and while some of it is because Brian Hackett is one of my favorite sitcom characters of all time, I also think he hasn't a bad job as NBC's president. (Better than Russel Dowlripple)

[BrianD]

I still think this show has fantastic potential. The first two episodes gave us a very good setup for the problems at the station and the plan that will go in place to fix the problems. We've started to get bits of history on the characters and will soon be able to focus more on the characters than on the "fix the studio" plot. The show hasn't hit full stride yet because it is still doing its setup. In the next week or two, we should get a good look at what this show will really become.

I applaud NBC for having the courage to give the show a few-week setup before really diving in. They are doing exactly what Fox didn't do with Firefly. Hopefully the fans will stick around long enough to see where it is going.

[Swaggs]

I like the potential here, also.

If it can get its setting in place and make it enjoyable, they can add/subtract/replace the stars, much like a real sketch comedy does with its writers and players, and add some different dynamics to the show.

[KWhit]

I am a huge fan of Sorkin and I really like the show so far. Perry has done a great job and I really like his and Whitford's chemistry.

Two big thumbs up, so far.

[LoneStarGirl]

I missed tonight's episode but i really enjoyed the last two. Its hard for me to see Perry and not think Chandler.

[Swaggs]

I liked this week's episode better than last week's.

Spoiler:



Is D.L. Hughley's character gay? The scene w/ the "groupie" at the wrap party seemed awkward and I was not sure what to make of it.

[ISiddiqui]

Good episode this week. I like the interaction between Perry and Whitford more and more as this show goes on. The 'cast' is even pretty good so far. I'm sure it'll take the first season just to get us introduced to all of them in some detail.

[Joe]

They need to show less of the show.. if that makes sense.

[cschex]

Enjoyable episode, I thought, better than last week's. Did anyone else catch Lucy Davis (Dawn!) from the UK version of the Office as Danny's assistant in the opening scene. It might have been just the one cameo, but I hope she shows up again.

[ThunderingHERD]

I liked this week's episode better than last week's.

Spoiler:



Is D.L. Hughley's character gay? The scene w/ the "groupie" at the wrap party seemed awkward and I was not sure what to make of it.

Great point. That hadn't occurred to me, but you're probably right.

[jonesz]

Great point. That hadn't occurred to me, but you're probably right.

I liked this week's episode better than last week's.

Spoiler:



Is D.L. Hughley's character gay? The scene w/ the "groupie" at the wrap party seemed awkward and I was not sure what to make of it.

It did seem awkward, but I saw it more as Hughley's character being a mentor. The guy, if it's the same scene I am thinking of, is actually one of the non "Big Three" actors at Studio 60. I took it more as Hughley putting him in line as a senior member.

Everytime I see that guy I always picture the Capital One ads with David Spade... I half expect him to run through the scene with his shirt on fire. I watch way too much TV..

[ausonny]

It did seem awkward, but I saw it more as Hughley's character being a mentor. The guy, if it's the same scene I am thinking of, is actually one of the non "Big Three" actors at Studio 60. I took it more as Hughley putting him in line as a senior member.

Everytime I see that guy I always picture the Capital One ads with David Spade... I half expect him to run through the scene with his shirt on fire. I watch way too much TV..

That's a different scene, actually a different episode. The scene in question is when a blonde comes on to Hughley and it's sort of awkward.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_7687.asp

NBC's 'Studio 60' in a ratings stumble
Much-praised drama loses 20 percent of 18-49s
By Toni Fitzgerald
Oct 3, 2006

“Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” has been universally praised for its smart writing, great acting and biting satire. But it’s possible that the show is a bit too inside Hollywood for most viewers.

After strong initial sampling, the show has dipped a good deal over the last two outings. Last night’s third episode averaged a 3.5 adults 18-49 rating, according to Nielsen overnights, down 20 percent from last week’s 4.4 and 30 percent from a 5.0 for the Sept. 18 debut.

Despite strong retention for “Heroes” after last week’s debut, NBC fell behind CBS on Monday night for the first time this season, averaging a 4.2 rating and 11 share to the latter’s 4.6/11.

At 10 p.m., “Studio 60” lost 34 percent of lead-in “Heroes’” 5.3 average. It finished third in the timeslot behind CBS’s “CSI: Miami” and ABC’s “The Bachelor” premiere.

That’s hardly encouraging for the Aaron Sorkin-penned drama, which some media people praised as the best pilot they’d ever seen over the summer. Indeed, the quality of the show doesn’t seem to be the problem; nearly everyone agrees that all the parts are there.

It may simply be the subject matter. People outside of Hollywood don’t care about the entertainment business nearly as much as those inside it do, and shows about the industry don’t have a great track record. HBO’s “The Comeback” lasted just one season, and even “Entourage,” its much-buzzed-about show about a young actor, isn’t a top viewer draw.

The good news for NBC is that the show may now have found its core audience and could stop dipping. It fell just 6 percent from its first half hour to its second after double-digit declines in its first weeks. “Studio 60” has also performed quite well among the affluent demos who helped make Sorkin’s “West Wing” a hit.

The better news was that “Heroes” continued to look strong. Though it dipped 10 percent from last week’s 5.9, it continued to build audience in its second half hour and again won its timeslot.

[larrymcg421]

I didn't see that scene as making Simon seem gay. I thought it meant he just wasn't interested in a one night stand. It's possible that he has a crush on Harriet.

[Easy Mac]

I haven't really been wowed by this show. Its ok, but I dunno, I still like Sports Night the best, then West Wing. This isn't in the same league for me.

[ISiddiqui]

I didn't see that scene as making Simon seem gay. I thought it meant he just wasn't interested in a one night stand. It's possible that he has a crush on Harriet.

Or he could have a wife/girlfriend at home. It isn't like we know about these peoples' personal lives very much. It'd be silly IMO for everyone to be single.

[Draft Dodger]

btw, I like Amanda Peet's character less and less every episode. just a complete wimp

[Easy Mac]

Or he could have a wife/girlfriend at home. It isn't like we know about these peoples' personal lives very much. It'd be silly IMO for everyone to be single.

come on, if a black guy doesn't sleep with a white woman, he has to be gay... hasn't tv taught you anything

[ThunderingHERD]

Or he could have a wife/girlfriend at home. It isn't like we know about these peoples' personal lives very much. It'd be silly IMO for everyone to be single.

My thinking is that for one of the leads, especially a black man, to be gay would create a lot of material for writers. I just figure Sorkin would love to tackle the gay black male vs. the network vs. middle america angle.

As for the idea that he turned it down because he is faithful to his wife/girlfriend: dramatically that's just not very interesting, and it's certainly not interesting enough to foreshadow in such a manner.

[Brillig]

Thoughts on episode 3... I do see this one as a step up from episode 2. Not a huge fan of the comedy-montage, but as long as they don't use it ever again, it works once. Some new dramatic tension in the developing relationship between Bradley Whitford and Amanda Peet, although who knows what'll happen there - it took the writers seven years to get him and Janel Maloney together ;). The Tom Cruise impression was a LOL moment for me, I must admit. One problem with the ensemble show is that there are too many characters for every show to be about everyone, but on the other hand, you want to introduce all the characters as quickly as you can. Hopefully, the following episodes will be a little more focused and less scattershot.

An aside on Amanda Peet's character - I agree with Draft Dodger, the character is not being written as someone who credibly could be hired as a network president. Not strong enough, not confrontational enough, not confident enough. I think it was better in episode 2 "No one tells me what to put on my air," but it's been getting weaker. Now admittedly, she was having a pretty bad day in episode 3, but I guess we'll have to see.

Finally - it was a brilliant choice of music at the end of the episode - "Will you still love me tomorrow," captures the essential neurosis of network television, as well as reflecting the almost trite insecurity among performers. (Note Matt leaving the party in full swing, completely alone, decidedly *not* happy after a huge night.)

[Swaggs]

As for the idea that he turned it down because he is faithful to his wife/girlfriend: dramatically that's just not very interesting, and it's certainly not interesting enough to foreshadow in such a manner.

Agreed.

The scene had to have been designed to set up a future plot point. I don't think it is to establish Simon's principles or maturity, but I guess that is possible. I think he passed on the groupie because he is either in the closet or has feelings for another main character. I dunno, I just thought it was an odd scene in the first place and then they kind of went back to it in the music montage, so I figure it must have some significance.

[Celeval]

Agreed.

The scene had to have been designed to set up a future plot point. I don't think it is to establish Simon's principles or maturity, but I guess that is possible. I think he passed on the groupie because he is either in the closet or has feelings for another main character. I dunno, I just thought it was an odd scene in the first place and then they kind of went back to it in the music montage, so I figure it must have some significance.

They did come back to it, briefly, when he set up the other of the three with the girl.

[jbmagic]

If you guys miss the 2nd episode you can watch it here.

http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/?show=studio60

[sterlingice]

They need to show less of the show.. if that makes sense.

Funny, as people were clamoring for that prior to this episode.

SI

[Raiders Army]

Funny, as people were clamoring for that prior to this episode.

SI

IMHO, the jokes aren't funny. The bear says "RAWR!" Not only that but the musical intro for the show (the fake show, not the real show) was painful and boring on the 2nd episode.

[sterlingice]

IMHO, the jokes aren't funny. The bear says "RAWR!" Not only that but the musical intro for the show (the fake show, not the real show) was painful and boring on the 2nd episode.

I tend to agree. Sorkin's not really a "ha-ha" funny type of writer, tho he does have his moments. Anyone who's seen Sports Night knows that his stuff when put to a laugh track doesn't really work and that's just what SNL-esque jokes are supposed to kill with.

SI

[Fidatelo]

IMHO, the jokes aren't funny. The bear says "RAWR!" Not only that but the musical intro for the show (the fake show, not the real show) was painful and boring on the 2nd episode.

This is the inherent problem with the entire concept. They are playing Matt up to be the funniest writer in hollywood, and then at times they have to actually show off his work. When they do, our expectations are gigantic, because this guy is hilarious right? Well, unless they have a real-life Matt on their writing staff, its going to be pretty tough to meet those audience expectations.

That said, I've watched all 3 episodes so far and feel pretty steeped about the show in general.

[ISiddiqui]

The bear joke wasn't supposed to be funny, that's why right after that someone said "She'll make it work". Though it sounds like it would be the kind of throw away joke you'd see on SNL's Weekend Update.

[ThunderingHERD]

I thought the Science Schmience bit was kind of funny. Other than the completely underwhelming Gilbert-&-Sullivan-parody grand opening sketch there hasn't been anything to undermine the internal reality that the show within the show is funny. I think they did a fairly good job at cutting the montage to suggest sketches that could be funny without actually having to write them funny

As for the bear says: "RARRR!", it sounds exactly like one of the terrible jokes you get on the Tina-Fey-era weekend update, so in that sense I think it was successful.

[Draft Dodger]

the guy doing the impressions was quite good

[Swaggs]

The bear joke wasn't supposed to be funny, that's why right after that someone said "She'll make it work". Though it sounds like it would be the kind of throw away joke you'd see on SNL's Weekend Update.

Agreed. I just thought that was thrown in to show how talented they think her character is.

[BrianD]

IMHO, the jokes aren't funny. The bear says "RAWR!" Not only that but the musical intro for the show (the fake show, not the real show) was painful and boring on the 2nd episode.

*This is not directed at RA, but it seemed like a good place to start my mini-rant*

Judging by the falling ratings, I think many people agree with you. I think this is why only reality shows and formulaic CSI-type shows do well in this country. The musical intro may not have been fall-on-the-floor funny, but it really was quite clever. Sadly, much of America is probably not familiar with The Pirates of Penzance so they didn't get the appropriateness of using that song. Oh well, another smart show on its way out so we can have more room for CSI: Ottumwa and Dancing With People You May Have Seen On TV Once Or Twice Before.

[vex]

Finally caught up with this show. Absolutely love it. Can't wait for tomorrow's episode.

[larrymcg421]

I liked the Gilbert and Sullivan bit. Especially the fake mixup with the "hundred dollar hooker's reacharound". I also thought Science Schmience was pretty funny. Then the little tiny bits were funny enough to suggest that the whole sketches might be funny. I'd like to see more of "Commedia del' Arte".

My dream is that they get really gutsy and do one episode that is just the show within the show. They'd have to get extended time and it would take alot of nerve to write full length sketches, but it would be very interesting.

As for the rest of the show, I'm digging it so far eventhough it's not yet quite as sharp as the best of Sports Night or West Wing.

[Barkeep49]

I think they should do less showing us the actual show. It's easier to believe that things are funny when you're not actually seeing the funny.

[Coop]

I agree, they should stop showing the show. it's not funny at all

[larrymcg421]

Tonight's episode was my favorite so far. It was the first one I thought really felt like the quality of Sports Night and West Wing. It especially reminded me of the Sports Night episodes where they were dealing with an on-air crisis.

"Bowels, Jeremy!!??"

[Peregrine]

I am liking this show more and more, but at the same time I'm getting more and more worried that it will be cancelled.

[Barkeep49]

In my mind there is little doubt it'll be canceled. I also agree that of the three non-pilot episodes this was the best. Part of what made it the best, was that I believed, really for the first time, that these characters are funny people and that they are doing a funny television show. Not sure what exactly caused me to feel that way, but I definitely felt it.

[KWhit]

*This is not directed at RA, but it seemed like a good place to start my mini-rant*

Judging by the falling ratings, I think many people agree with you. I think this is why only reality shows and formulaic CSI-type shows do well in this country. The musical intro may not have been fall-on-the-floor funny, but it really was quite clever. Sadly, much of America is probably not familiar with The Pirates of Penzance so they didn't get the appropriateness of using that song. Oh well, another smart show on its way out so we can have more room for CSI: Ottumwa and Dancing With People You May Have Seen On TV Once Or Twice Before.

I agree 100%. I'm not surprised that this isn't a top rated show. I think the show is kind of similar to the Commedia sketch from last week's episode (haven't seen last night's episode yet) - a lot of people won't get it, but those that do are going to freaking love it.

And Sorkin is actually a very funny writer, IMO. I once directed a play that he wrote that was hillarious - Hidden in this Picture. His other works have had funny moments as well. It will be interesting to see how the comedy progresses as the show goes on.

[sterlingice]

Easily the funniest of the episodes so far. Tho the contrast between the show and the show within the show is getting larger, not smaller. But the actual show feels like it's starting to hit its stride.

A minor quibble as I did get some Sorkin flashbacks while watching last night. The "punishment" thing- I knew what he was going to say a minute before he said it because Sorkin's done the same exact stupid (tired, whiny, east coast) bit in both Sports Night and West Wing. Thankfully he didn't drag it out like in the previous two. Also, we got more love for international cricket which he referenced in Sports Night for almost an entire episode.

SI

[Crapshoot]

Easily the funniest of the episodes so far. Tho the contrast between the show and the show within the show is getting larger, not smaller. But the actual show feels like it's starting to hit its stride.

A minor quibble as I did get some Sorkin flashbacks while watching last night. The "punishment" thing- I knew what he was going to say a minute before he said it because Sorkin's done the same exact stupid (tired, whiny, east coast) bit in both Sports Night and West Wing. Thankfully he didn't drag it out like in the previous two. Also, we got more love for international cricket which he referenced in Sports Night for almost an entire episode.

SI

Hey, I'm all for international cricket. Locks in the lucrative sub-continental audience (aka me, Nequa, Isiddiqui) :D

[Ksyrup]

FYI...


Fast National ratings for Monday, Oct. 9, 2006.

CBS' Monday sitcom swap may have benefited both 8 p.m. shows, as "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Class" helped to open a Monday night win.

Overall, CBS averaged a 9.4 rating/15 share, comfortably ahead of the 7.8/12 for second place NBC. ABC's 5.3/8 was good for third, nearly doubling up the 2.7/4 for FOX. Fifth place went to The CW, as the new network's comedy block did no better on Mondays than on Sundays with a 1.6/2.

CBS also won among adults 18-49, though the network's margin of victory was slimmer, doing a 4.8 rating to nip the 4.7 rating for NBC. ABC's 3.1 rating was third, leaving FOX's 1.3 rating and the 1.0 rating for The CW at the back of the pack.

NBC started in front with the 9.4/15 for "Deal or No Deal." CBS' "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Class" switched places this week and averaged a 6.4/10, as "The Class" actually improved slightly on its lead-in. ABC's "Wife Swap" was third with a 5.3/8, followed by FOX's repeat of "Prison Break." The CW's "Everybody Hates Chris" (1.9/3) and "All of Us" (1.6/2) had their Monday premieres.

CBS moved into the lead in the 9 p.m. hour with "Two and a Half Men" (10.9/16) and "The New Adventures of Old Christine" (9.0/13). NBC's "Heroes" was second with an 8.1/12, actually winning the hour among adults 18-49. ABC's "The Bachelor" was third, followed by "Justice," which had a 2.6/4 in its time period premiere. The CW was down slightly with "Girlfriends" and "The Game."

"CSI: Miami" delivered an 11.8/19 to help CBS close in first. NBC's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" continued to underperform with a 5.7/9, still better than the 5.0/8 for the season premiere of "What About Brian."


Ratings information is taken from fast national data, which includes live and same-day DVR viewing. All numbers are preliminary and subject to change.

[rkmsuf]

that show is toast

[Vince]

Bummer about the ratings. I finally caught this show last night, and really enjoyed it.

[Raiders Army]

FWIW, after a few beers this show is worse than I thought it was. There is no one that talks the way they do. I couldn't follow the dialogue (must be my puny brain on alcohol). The whole Matthew Perry/lackey banter leading up to him going to the Roxy was too fast and both actors barely let the other finish speaking before they jumped in.

I really want to like this show. I really do. Call me a mark, but there is nothing that grabs me about this show and pulls me in. I don't think they have enough time to set up the show...which is what I think they're doing now. They need to grab some cheap hooks and draw the audience in as opposed to a lot of throwaway, snappy, am-I-smart dialogue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... as opposed to a lot of throwaway, snappy, am-I-smart dialogue.

So basically you want them to get rid of Sorkin?
I mean, that's as much his trademark as anything IMO.

Sportsnight, which I enjoyed throughout its run, was often summed up by that description itself.

[wade moore]

Yeah, RA basically summed up why I like the show...

Man.. NBC really set it up for failure IMO by putting it against CSI: Miami which for some unknown reason gets great ratings... seems like there was something weaker they could put it up against..

I hope it stays on.. it seems that every year there is at least one show that I REALLY like (inJustice last year) that doesn't make it past one season...

[primelord]

There is no one that talks the way they do.

Did you like Sports Night or The West Wing? That's how everyone talks in all Sorkin shows.

Edit: JIMGA beat me to it.

[Raiders Army]

Did you like Sports Night or The West Wing? That's how everyone talks in all Sorkin shows.

Edit: JIMGA beat me to it.

Never watched either. I wanted to watch Sports Night but never knew when it was on...I guess I didn't want to watch it that bad. I didn't like the idea of a drama about the White House...real life provides the drama there. :)

[sterlingice]

So basically you want them to get rid of Sorkin?
I mean, that's as much his trademark as anything IMO.

Sportsnight, which I enjoyed throughout its run, was often summed up by that description itself.

There was a great quote back when Sorkin and Schlamme were more or less forced off of The West Wing that really showed what tv was all about (and unfortunately, I just can't find it right now). It was some NBC executive talking about how the show needed to essentially dumb down and get a bigger audience because "The Bachelor" was peeling viewers off of it.

SI

[Swaggs]

I still like it, but I don't really think the romance story line (between Perry and the blonde actress). They just don't seem to have that much chemistry, and really, I have more trouble buying into Perry than the actress.

I still like the show and hope it gets a fair shake, but I'm guessing if they get back together soon, we will be in for a short series.

[Neuqua]

I don't know why but I'm liking this considerably more than Heroes, and yet America does not agree with me.

[dime]

the show is definitely not as sharp as sportsnight was...but that doesn't mean it's bad. just not sorkin at his finest.

the "stolen material" about dropping food with bombs and all that was embarassingly unfunny.

[vex]

Yeah, it wasn't a funny sketch, but it made for a good episode.

[sterlingice]

Good news from the full ratings for Monday (http://www.tv.com/story/story.html&story_id=6682?tag=gumballs;subtitle;0&om_act=convert&click=gumballs)

Heroes is helping the peacock fly.

The freshman show, about regular folks the world over who discover they have super powers, has seen its audience grow each of its three week. Last night's episode grew 7 percent from the previous week in adults 18-49.


The episode, which featured the introduction of effectively creepy arch-villain Sylar, scored a 5.9 rating, 14 share in adults 18-49, with 13.3 million viewers overall, making it the number one new show of the fall season. The show helped Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip recover from a slide last Monday--last night, Studio grew 12 percent from the week before.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_7955.asp
NBC's 'Studio 60' tumbles to new low
Troubled drama falls 18 percent, to a 3.1 in 18-49s

By Toni Fitzgerald
Oct 17, 2006

After recording its first week-to-week uptick in ratings last week, NBC’s highly touted drama “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” dipped to a series-low for last night’s episode, erasing all of the previous week’s gains and then some.

The 10 p.m. show averaged a 3.1 in adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights, down 18 percent from last week’s 3.8. It was also down 9 percent from the show’s previous low, a 3.4 on Oct. 2.

“Strip” dipped to third place in the timeslot, behind ABC’s “What About Brian,” which was up week to week from its premiere.

So what’s the problem with “Strip?” Though certainly one issue, already raised by media people, is that the show is too inside Hollywood to draw non-media junkies, it may also be that the show’s quality is sliding.

After an excellent pilot, the show has slumped into inertia of sorts, with a love story that doesn’t go anywhere and no overall plotline giving the show urgency. Another issue is the writing for the show-within-a-show’s comedy sketches. They’re rarely funny, and they take up too much of the program’s time.

Certainly all new shows go through ups and downs creatively, and though the stories may have faltered, creator Aaron Sorkin still offers crackling dialogue. But this latest ratings downturn is certainly not good for a show that media people already tabbed the year’s most disappointing in a recent Media Life poll.

Yet it’s worth noting that NBC still won the night among 18-49s, its fourth victory in five weeks, thanks to the strength of its 8-10 p.m. lineup of “Deal or No Deal” and “Heroes.”

[vex]

:(

[larrymcg421]

I don't understand that article at all. I think the show has only gotten better since it's pilot.

It's a shame that the ratings have been dropping, but I still bet this survives for the full season. NBC just doesn't have much else to replace it with and already have other holes on the schedule. It'll be interesting to see if the ratings spike after MNF is done.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It'll be interesting to see if the ratings spike after MNF is done.

I'd be surprised if it lasts that long.

[Coop]

So what’s the problem with “Strip?” Though certainly one issue, already raised by media people, is that the show is too inside Hollywood to draw non-media junkies, it may also be that the show’s quality is sliding.

After an excellent pilot, the show has slumped into inertia of sorts, with a love story that doesn’t go anywhere and no overall plotline giving the show urgency. Another issue is the writing for the show-within-a-show’s comedy sketches. They’re rarely funny, and they take up too much of the program’s time.


I agree with all of these points, i think next week might be the last week I watch this show. Another thing, the only character I really like is Matthew Perry's character.

[larrymcg421]

I'd be surprised if it lasts that long.

Why? What does NBC have to move in there? They already have to deal with Friday Night Lights and Kidnapped. 30 Rock and 20 Good Years had underwhelming premieres and I doubt either of those will survive. If this show was on CBS, it would have been cancelled already, but the fact it's on NBC wil buy it some more time. Also, they've poured alot of money into this show, so they have a big interest in seeing it become successful. Moreso than the aforementioned shows.

[DaddyTorgo]

Why? What does NBC have to move in there? They already have to deal with Friday Night Lights and Kidnapped. 30 Rock and 20 Good Years had underwhelming premieres and I doubt either of those will survive. If this show was on CBS, it would have been cancelled already, but the fact it's on NBC wil buy it some more time. Also, they've poured alot of money into this show, so they have a big interest in seeing it become successful. Moreso than the aforementioned shows.

ding ding

the salaries for matthew perry and the west-wing alum guy (yeah you can tell i'm real good with borderline famous actor's names) alone give them a reason to keep this show plugging past when they might otherwise cancel it early.

[Joe]

Why? What does NBC have to move in there? They already have to deal with Friday Night Lights and Kidnapped. 30 Rock and 20 Good Years had underwhelming premieres and I doubt either of those will survive. If this show was on CBS, it would have been cancelled already, but the fact it's on NBC wil buy it some more time. Also, they've poured alot of money into this show, so they have a big interest in seeing it become successful. Moreso than the aforementioned shows.

they can just plug the whole lineup with Deal or No Deal and they would get many more viewers.

[Celeval]

Add in the success of Sorkin's previous shows, I can't see Studio 60 being cancelled short of the full season. Moved off Monday night at 10, perhaps.

[larrymcg421]

they can just plug the whole lineup with Deal or No Deal and they would get many more viewers.

That strategy was disastrous for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and Deal or No Deal isn't even close to that show at it's peak. They're probably already stretching it with two airings a week.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Add in the success of Sorkin's previous shows

Careful not to overestimate that.

WW lasted seven seasons & had a good run while SN was a critical success that failed to get over with audiences.

Right now S60 isn't doing either.

[ThunderingHERD]

FWIW, I thought last night's episode was the weakest yet, especially disappointing since the episode that preceded it was the strongest. There wasn't enough humor--Perry was relegated to looking dour the entire show and Whitford didn't have enough screen time. Too much time was devoted to the rather preachy and incredible (as in quite literally not credible) behavior of network execs Peet and Asner. Sting was just a distraction.

[ISiddiqui]

I just saw last night's episode (DVR recording). I like the show, I think the dialogue is great (I wasn't a fan of the West Wing for its very left leaning politics typified by that utterly ridiculous presidential race in the last season), but I agree that inertia has already hit the show. Not good to hit that line so early. I like the dialogue, but its losing me. It's a show I feel I can wait to see the recording of, unlike, say, Heroes (which I have to see the night it comes out... either live or on recording).

[Crapshoot]

Yeah I like Studio 60, but its not grabbing me. I enjoy the characters, the dialogue and what not, but its fast becoming an attempt at a character study - in which the main characters are often shunted of the the side (Sting ? Martha whatshername ?). I want to see it succeed, but I doubt it lasts at this rate.

[ThunderingHERD]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54117

[digamma]

Yeah I like Studio 60, but its not grabbing me. I enjoy the characters, the dialogue and what not, but its fast becoming an attempt at a character study - in which the main characters are often shunted of the the side (Sting ? Martha whatshername ?). I want to see it succeed, but I doubt it lasts at this rate.

One line from this show last night summed up for me why it's not a hit (not verbatim):

"Half of this country hates the other half, but for 90 minutes each week, you two can put your differences aside and shine."

I enjoy Sorkin's writing. I enjoy the acting. But, please, PLEASE, come off your high horse. It's about making a television comedy show, not about solving national issues.

[larrymcg421]

One line from this show last night summed up for me why it's not a hit (not verbatim):

"Half of this country hates the other half, but for 90 minutes each week, you two can put your differences aside and shine."

I enjoy Sorkin's writing. I enjoy the acting. But, please, PLEASE, come off your high horse. It's about making a television comedy show, not about solving national issues.

He's been on that horse for a long time now. I don't think he's ever coming down.

It's not always bad. Sometimes he brings out some really good stuff while preaching at the same time. Sports Night actually had alot of preaching, but it was more subtle and done in humorous ways. That line you mentioned was pretty awkward, though.

[digamma]

He's been on that horse for a long time now. I don't think he's ever coming down.

It's not always bad. Sometimes he brings out some really good stuff while preaching at the same time. Sports Night actually had alot of preaching, but it was more subtle and done in humorous ways. That line you mentioned was pretty awkward, though.

The high horse was somewhat warranted on the West Wing. That show was about the White House. About world affairs. This is about a television show.

[larrymcg421]

The high horse was somewhat warranted on the West Wing. That show was about the White House. About world affairs. This is about a television show.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying it's not likely he will come down from it. The best hope is he can be more subtle about it.

[Joe Canadian]

FWIW, I think part of the reason it has been canceled has been dealt with in-show. The normal viewers of a Sorkin show are worth more than the average viewer...

I like the show... but there's something about it that just doesn't get me the way Hero's is. For one, they need to stop showing so much of the sketch show, that pregnancy skit was horrible.

[RPI-Fan]

FWIW, I think part of the reason it has been canceled has been dealt with in-show. The normal viewers of a Sorkin show are worth more than the average viewer...

I like the show... but there's something about it that just doesn't get me the way Hero's is. For one, they need to stop showing so much of the sketch show, that pregnancy skit was horrible.

Cancelled???

[vex]

Cancelled???

"

[larrymcg421]

I checked mediaweek, futon critic, yahoo tv, variety, and hollywood reporter, and there is no mention of a cancellation. I think that post was a bit of jumping the gun.

[Coop]

http://community.tvguide.com/forum.jspa?forumID=700000049

Studio 60 is getting sacked by Friday Night Lights. At least temporarily.

Sources confirm that NBC is handing Studio 60's Monday/10 pm time-slot over to FNL on Oct. 30 for what I'm told is a one-night experiment. But, let's face it, if FNL performs better than Studio 60 — and that bar has been set pretty darn low — we may be looking at the birth of a Monday night football franchise on NBC.

All told, this is a great vote of confidence for FNL and an ominous bit of foreshadowing for Aaron Sorkin's struggling drama.

[larrymcg421]

The Oct. 30th airing of Studio 60 was scheduled to be a repeat, so this isn't the major deal they're making it out to be. They're probably just testing to see if Friday Night Lights will be a better fit for Heroes. It might be, but it should have even more difficulty competing with MNF.

I really don't see NBC giving up on Studio 60 so quickly. They gave Sorkin a 13 episode guarantee and paid a fortune for those 13 episodes. If they determine it doesn't fit at Monday night (which is not where they originally wanted it anyways), they can always try it out in a different slot. They have a history of sticking with low-rated shows, and it paid off big time with The Office last year.

[Coop]

Dont forget Seinfeld, that kind of paid off ;)

[Joe Canadian]

NOTE: I meant to say, the reason it hasn't been canceled...

[Joe Canadian]

All told, this is a great vote of confidence for FNL and an ominous bit of foreshadowing for Aaron Sorkin's struggling drama.

How is putting FNL up against Monday Night Football a good thing for that show? It would seem to me that this move would hurt a football based show...

[JonInMiddleGA]

In a tangent that could prove relevant to the future of S60:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/cat_index_31.asp#7995
NBC plans major cutbacks in workforce and shows
A broad axe is falling at NBC Universal. The General Electric Co. division plans to reduce its use of scripted shows on NBC and to shrink the network's spending on news, as part of an effort to eliminate $750 million of operating expenses by the end of next year, according to several reports this morning. The cuts will affect about 700 NBC Universal workers, or 5 percent of its payroll. Most of the layoffs will come in the news department. The company is expected to confirm the moves later today. Over the past two years, NBC slipped into fourth place among adults 18-49 and saw its upfront take plummet. Meanwhile, NBC Universal's operating profit has dropped 10 percent in each of the last three quarters. The cutbacks reportedly will include the elimination of scripted shows in the 8-9 p.m. primetime slots. Those shows are much more expensive than reality TV and game shows, and NBC hasn't had a huge scripted hit since "Friends" and "Frasier" ended two years ago. Jeff Zucker, head of NBC Universal's television group, told The Wall Street Journal that NBC pays $1.1 million for an episode of the game show "Deal or No Deal," compared to $2.6 million per episode for the drama "Friday Night Lights."

[Honolulu_Blue]

In a tangent that could prove relevant to the future of S60:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/cat_index_31.asp#7995
NBC plans major cutbacks in workforce and shows
A broad axe is falling at NBC Universal. The General Electric Co. division plans to reduce its use of scripted shows on NBC and to shrink the network's spending on news, as part of an effort to eliminate $750 million of operating expenses by the end of next year, according to several reports this morning. The cuts will affect about 700 NBC Universal workers, or 5 percent of its payroll. Most of the layoffs will come in the news department. The company is expected to confirm the moves later today. Over the past two years, NBC slipped into fourth place among adults 18-49 and saw its upfront take plummet. Meanwhile, NBC Universal's operating profit has dropped 10 percent in each of the last three quarters. The cutbacks reportedly will include the elimination of scripted shows in the 8-9 p.m. primetime slots. Those shows are much more expensive than reality TV and game shows, and NBC hasn't had a huge scripted hit since "Friends" and "Frasier" ended two years ago. Jeff Zucker, head of NBC Universal's television group, told The Wall Street Journal that NBC pays $1.1 million for an episode of the game show "Deal or No Deal," compared to $2.6 million per episode for the drama "Friday Night Lights."

That's depressing.

[Fidatelo]

TV is quickly becoming irrelevant. What a bunch of idiots.

[Joe]

probably because of all the money they had to spend on Sunday Night Football

[Joe Canadian]

So basically NBC is cutting their budget because they are in fourth place... with the result being that they stay in fourth place. Unscripted television isn't what saves networks, it's scripted long running television series that do this. Case in point is ABC, which jumped out of last place on the backs of Desperate Housewives and Lost.

As longs as NBC doesn't cancel Heroes & The Office I'll be okay. I'm sure the other networks will be happy to pick up the scripted shows NBC passes on.

What makes this story even funnier is that NBC is doing the exact opposite of the fake network in Studio 60.

[Coop]

Heroes is doing great in the ratings so that isnt going anywhere, so is the office. this is kind of depressing stuff to read.

[Joe]

Heroes is doing great in the ratings so that isnt going anywhere, so is the office. this is kind of depressing stuff to read.

I wouldn't say The Office is doing great. It's finished 3rd in its timeslot and 10th on Thursdays in total viewers the past 3 weeks (9th for the season premier)

[DaddyTorgo]

In a tangent that could prove relevant to the future of S60:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/cat_index_31.asp#7995
NBC plans major cutbacks in workforce and shows
A broad axe is falling at NBC Universal. The General Electric Co. division plans to reduce its use of scripted shows on NBC and to shrink the network's spending on news, as part of an effort to eliminate $750 million of operating expenses by the end of next year, according to several reports this morning. The cuts will affect about 700 NBC Universal workers, or 5 percent of its payroll. Most of the layoffs will come in the news department. The company is expected to confirm the moves later today. Over the past two years, NBC slipped into fourth place among adults 18-49 and saw its upfront take plummet. Meanwhile, NBC Universal's operating profit has dropped 10 percent in each of the last three quarters. The cutbacks reportedly will include the elimination of scripted shows in the 8-9 p.m. primetime slots. Those shows are much more expensive than reality TV and game shows, and NBC hasn't had a huge scripted hit since "Friends" and "Frasier" ended two years ago. Jeff Zucker, head of NBC Universal's television group, told The Wall Street Journal that NBC pays $1.1 million for an episode of the game show "Deal or No Deal," compared to $2.6 million per episode for the drama "Friday Night Lights."

well here's one viewer they'll lose then. UGH...I am so sick of all the "unscripted" reality shows/gameshows. BORRRRRRRINGGG

[rowech]

TV SUCKS!!!!! There needs to be actual sitcoms that get this...are funny. I watch basically three shows in a week. House being the only one I would classify as a can't miss. The rest of TV just doesn't cut it. I enjoy CSI and Two and a Half Men.

Shows I thought had promise -- Four Kings, a show called Quintuplets (I think), and there was another one with a name that escapes me. These networks are in such a hurry to find the next hit, they aren't willing to give any show a chance if they don't hit it right away.

[Joe Canadian]

There needs to be actual sitcoms that get this...are funny.

I enjoy ... Two and a Half Men.

The two statements above do not make sense together...

[JonInMiddleGA]

These networks are in such a hurry to find the next hit, they aren't willing to give any show a chance if they don't hit it right away.

When a Desperate Housewives sized hit is getting more than $500k per :30 spot versus $100k-$150k per spot on the also-rans (multiply the diff. by the number of spots in a show & you'll see how quickly it adds up), I can't be too critical of networks for looking for a home run.

[larrymcg421]

I wouldn't say The Office is doing great. It's finished 3rd in its timeslot and 10th on Thursdays in total viewers the past 3 weeks (9th for the season premier)

Yeah but generally advertisers aren't looking for total viewers. They're looking for Adults 18-49, a demographic that The Office is very successful in. For example, last week The Office was #11 for the Thursday night in total viewers but it was #6 in 18-49 (behind only Grey's Anatomy, CSI, ER, Survivor, and Ugly Betty). Last year, it was #69 out of all shows in total viewers but #31 in 18-49.

[primelord]

The two statements above do not make sense together...

Well to be fair he also said he thought Four Kings had promise. So we can see where his taste is. :)

[wade moore]

Meh. I'm really growing to like this show more and more, so I hate to see that it's not doin gwell. But, again, I usually see one show I really like each season get dropped.

[Barkeep49]

While I thought last week's show was poor, it did have the first time I thought a sketch was funny: that Nancy Grace sketch? Yeah it made me smile.

I would be amazed if we don't get at least 18 episodes of Studio 60, for all the reasons already mentioned.

[Joe Canadian]

New episode tonight, next week a rerun of Friday Night Lights has taken Studio 60's slot... could this be a sign of things to come? I think so, especially with the news NBC is trying to cut costs... there's no way they'll order more episodes after the 13 episode run they already have.

Sadly this show is dead...

[larrymcg421]

As I noted earlier, the Studio 60 episode that was scheduled for Oct. 30 was the pilot, so they are only pre-empting a repeat. I don't think things are quite that ominous yet. I'll be more worried when NBC decides to give The Black Donnellys a try in the Monday 10pm slot.

[Celeval]

New episode tonight, next week a rerun of Friday Night Lights has taken Studio 60's slot... could this be a sign of things to come? I think so, especially with the news NBC is trying to cut costs... there's no way they'll order more episodes after the 13 episode run they already have.

Sadly this show is dead...

Next week was, I believe, already scheduled to be a Studio 60 rerun.

[Fidatelo]

Here's a question from a guy who knows almost nothing about how ratings are compiled:

As far as I know, I'm not a 'nielson family' or anything like that. As such, I always just download the episode later in the week and watch it when I want. Is this hurting its ratings in any way? Is there any possible way for me to effect the ratings of this show?

I really like it and I don't want it cancelled, but as far as I can tell it doesn't matter whether I watch it or not.

[Joe Canadian]

Here's a question from a guy who knows almost nothing about how ratings are compiled:

As far as I know, I'm not a 'nielson family' or anything like that. As such, I always just download the episode later in the week and watch it when I want. Is this hurting its ratings in any way? Is there any possible way for me to effect the ratings of this show?

I really like it and I don't want it cancelled, but as far as I can tell it doesn't matter whether I watch it or not.

No, you're not hurting ratings. Nielson gathers ratings from set top boxes that are given to "Nielson Families"... or by survey. So unless you have been contacted for a survey or have those boxes in your home... you don't count.

[Fidatelo]

No, you're not hurting ratings. Nielson gathers ratings from set top boxes that are given to "Nielson Families"... or by survey. So unless you have been contacted for a survey or have those boxes in your home... you don't count.

So by the same token I can't help the ratings then either eh? That blows, TV needs a better way of measuring viewership.

[sterlingice]

Speaking of Nielsen, I got a call Sunday asking us to do diaries for this week. I'll be helping out Studio 60 a little.

SI

[Crapshoot]

Speaking of Nielsen, I got a call Sunday asking us to do diaries for this week. I'll be helping out Studio 60 a little.

SI

Thanks. I thought tonight's episode was the best of the lot.

[sterlingice]

I haven't seen it yet- I taped it and will probably watch it tomorrow night (there's a column for that in the diary, apparently- I dunno, it's supposed to arrive Wednesday or Thursday they said).

SI

[lordscarlet]

Thanks. I thought tonight's episode was the best of the lot.

"

[cschex]

I really enjoyed tonight's episode and I think Tom's and Simon's characters got much-needed development. However, I really think the lack of a consistent plot-arc is hurting the show. West Wing obviously had that and even Sports Night, despite being a half-hour show, seemed to have more of a driving force behind it. It seems like Jack and Jordan are there for comic relief, for example. Maybe this new show that Jordan greenlighted will become an issue, but I doubt it. All that being said, I like the show a lot, but I have a hard time believing the ratings will be high enough to keep it on.

[Ksyrup]

'Heroes' salute:
Tops list of new series

NBC drama rises 9 percent in 18-49s from last week

By Toni Fitzgerald
Oct 24, 2006


NBC ran a three-episode marathon of its new hit show “Heroes” Sunday night during “Sunday Night Football’s” usual spot, taking advantage of the NFL’s break for the World Series to let newcomers catch up on the season’s top-rated new show in adults 18-49.

Apparently that extra exposure did bring in some new viewers. “Heroes” climbed to a series-best 6.2 rating in adults 18-49 last night, according to Nielsen overnights, the best rating for a new show yet this season.

“Heroes” was up 9 percent over last week’s 5.7 and was the top-rated show on Monday night, bettering CBS’s “CSI: Miami” by 0.3. “Heroes” also tied a season high in total viewers with 14.3 million.

In its 9 p.m. timeslot, “Heroes” dominated, with CBS at No. 2 nearly two full points behind. The big performance helped NBC to its fifth Monday win in six weeks this season, though by a small margin.

NBC led with a 4.6 rating and 12 share, followed by CBS at 4.5/11, ABC at 2.9/7, Fox at 2.6/7, Univision at 1.6/4, and the CW at 1.2/3.

At 8 p.m., NBC’s “Deal or No Deal” led with a 4.4 rating, followed by CBS’s “How I Met Your Mother” (3.6) and “The Class” (2.9) at 3.3, Fox’s “Prison Break” at 3.2, ABC’s “Wife Swap” at 2.8, Univision’s “La Fea Mas Bella” at 1.9, and the CW’s “Everybody Hates Chris” (1.2) and “All of Us” (1.2) at 1.2.

At 9 p.m., “Heroes” jumped ahead at 6.2, followed by a 4.3 for CBS’s “Two and a Half Men” (4.7) and “The New Adventures of Old Christine” (3.9), a 3.2 for ABC’s “The Bachelor,” a 2.0 for Fox’s relocated “Justice,” a 1.4 for Univision’s “Mundo de Fieras,” and a 1.2 for CW’s “Girlfriends” (1.2) and “The Game” (1.1).

At 10 p.m., CBS’s “CSI: Miami” dominated with a 5.9, followed by NBC’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” at 3.2, ABC’s “What About Brian” at 2.7, and Univision’s “Cristina” at 1.3.

“Studio 60” was up slightly from last week’s series-low 3.1 but lost half of its “Heroes” lead-in, a big cause for concern.

Among households, CBS led with an 8.8/13, followed by NBC at 7.8/12, ABC at 5.0/8, Fox at 4.7/7, Univision at 2.1/3, and the CW at 1.9/3.

[rkmsuf]

When you are trying to stay ahead of Univision it's not going well.

[Peregrine]

I really enjoy this show but I wish they would put it in a more protected time slot, I think it's the kind of show that can get popular but it needs some time. Of course shows like that are almost always cancelled.

[ISiddiqui]

I just saw Monday's show, and while I liked it, I thought the whole "what does the writer do" thing was annoying as Hell. I don't care how DUMB they are supposed to be, you can't convince me that they don't know what a head writer does, for fuck's sake!

[sterlingice]

Just watched this past week's episode last night. This is the first episode that will really make me miss this show if it's gone. It almost feels like it's starting to find its way.

The comic was the first really funny thing that was supposed to be a part of the show. I hope whoever writes that character starts writing some of the "in show" stuff as that character's material was really funny, even over the horrible (intentional) delivery.

The other sideplots were decent- the drunk Jordan was a bit obnoxious but it tied the baseball player plot together nicely. The Tom's parents thing was predictable but had some good moments. Lastly, the blacklisted writers plot is the type of thing which Sorkin can turn into gold. It's so much of a trademark and something he does so well that as soon as I saw the mysterious and unexplained old figure who wasn't as senile as we were supposed to believe- in short, even tho it was telegraphed- I knew it was going to be good and wasn't disappointed.

(minor spoiler)

As for the arc comment, the next episode looks like it's the first of a two parter so hopefully we'll start to get some bigger stories. And it has John Goodman as a guest star- bonus.

SI

[Joe]

remember that there is no episode next week. FNL is taking over Studio 60's spot for the night, and a repeat of the FNL episode is also airing on Tuesday. they aren't just switching.

[Brillig]

As for the arc comment, the next episode looks like it's the first of a two parter so hopefully we'll start to get some bigger stories. And it has John Goodman as a guest star- bonus.


I guess they're not superstitious. After all, Sorkin left the West Wing right after John Goodman guest starred there.

All right, he made the discussion to leave well before. Just sayin :p

[Joe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html

Here we go: despite receiving an order for three more episodes on Friday, the Aaron Sorkin NBC drama “Studio 60 on Sunset Strip” is about to be put out of its misery.

Cast members are already confiding in friends that the end is near. It’s likely NBC will pull the plug shortly I am told by insiders.

Last week, Studio 60 had 7.7 million viewers. Compare that with competing "CSI: Miami," with 17.5 million. That gap cannot be closed.

But ‘Studio 60’ has trouble internally at NBC, forget its intramural rivals. According to ratings stats, the “Saturday Night Live” behind the scenes soap opera loses almost half the viewers delivered to it a few minutes earlier by another new show, “Heroes,” which has become a surprise cult hit.

On Monday, ‘Heroes’ had 14.3 million viewers. The substantial drop off with 'Studio 60' is probably the last nail in its coffin. The order of the three extra episodes is considered by insiders to be a contractual move, and not one based on faith that they will ever be made or aired. The all important demo situation didn’t help: 'Heroes' had 15 percent of viewers aged 18-49. Studio 60 had 8 percent. The notion that 'Studio 60' is a big draw for NBC among desirables is, sadly, blown on those stats.

Sorkin and friends will argue that NBC has done something wrong, or that the audience isn’t smart enough. Alas, in this case, neither is true. 'Studio 60'—as I wrote on August 7th after viewing the pilot—is just a bad show. There’s nothing wrong with the acting, directing, or dialogue writing. But the premise is faulty. No one cares whether a bunch of over caffeinated, well off yuppies, some with expensive drug habits, put on a weekly comedy sketch show from Los Angeles.

Even worse: no one cares whether or not the people from the Bartlett White House puts on a comedy show. That’s what 'Studio 60' is, essentially: the "West Wing" annual talent show. There’s so much earnestness involved in this endeavour, you start to think that nuclear war will be declared if the 'Studio 60' staff doesn’t air some joke—usually one we don’t hear anyway. The whole thing just feels weighted down and frankly, not entertaining.

There is one winner to come out of 'Studio 60,' however: Matthew Perry. In this show he’s proven himself to be a star on his own separate from "Friends." His comedic timing and ability to ad lib, toss off lines, and give restrained physical reactions is what keeps 'Studio 60' even remotely interesting. We can only be hopeful that someone comes up with a great new show for him quickly—but a comedy that’s funny, not a drama that isn’t.

NBC will probably fill the lost 'Studio 60' timeslot with 'Deal-No Deal: The Next Generation,' or some such thing. So the losers here will be the audience, which is about to be pummelled by more reality and game shows. It’s too bad because around the dial there are good new dramas. Despite its heavy “thirtysomething” feel, “Brothers and Sisters” is worth keeping if only for Sally Field, Ron Rifkin and Rachel Griffiths. (But there a mistake was made, too: killing off patriarch Tom Skerritt in the first episode.)

Oh well: I hope Regis is warming up the holiday edition of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." We’re ready!

[Raiders Army]

No, you're not hurting ratings. Nielson gathers ratings from set top boxes that are given to "Nielson Families"... or by survey. So unless you have been contacted for a survey or have those boxes in your home... you don't count.

DirecTV tracks what shows all of its customers watch. I know this because there's a function where you can see the most popular shows at the moment (according to DirecTV users). I had it come up once but I can't figure out what I did to see it...nor have I had the inclination to look for it again.

Maybe they'll move 1 vs. 100 in its place.

[Draft Dodger]

Sorkin and friends will argue that NBC has done something wrong, or that the audience isn’t smart enough. Alas, in this case, neither is true. 'Studio 60'—as I wrote on August 7th after viewing the pilot—is just a bad show. There’s nothing wrong with the acting, directing, or dialogue writing. But the premise is faulty. No one cares whether a bunch of over caffeinated, well off yuppies, some with expensive drug habits, put on a weekly comedy sketch show from Los Angeles.

Even worse: no one cares whether or not the people from the Bartlett White House puts on a comedy show. That’s what 'Studio 60' is, essentially: the "West Wing" annual talent show. There’s so much earnestness involved in this endeavour, you start to think that nuclear war will be declared if the 'Studio 60' staff doesn’t air some joke—usually one we don’t hear anyway. The whole thing just feels weighted down and frankly, not entertaining.

There is one winner to come out of 'Studio 60,' however: Matthew Perry. In this show he’s proven himself to be a star on his own separate from "Friends." His comedic timing and ability to ad lib, toss off lines, and give restrained physical reactions is what keeps 'Studio 60' even remotely interesting. We can only be hopeful that someone comes up with a great new show for him quickly—but a comedy that’s funny, not a drama that isn’t.


these 3 paragraphs sum up my feelings on the show better than I could ever do. odd that of the two Monday night NBC shows, the one I thought would suck (Heroes) has been awesome, and the one I thought would be awesome (60) has been meh.

[spleen1015]

The first episode was pretty good I think. Amanda Peat's whittiness and the dynamic between Whitford and Perry was awesome. We haven't seen anything like it since the first episode. I am still enjoying the show, but I'm not heart broken over it getting the can.

[kcchief19]

'Studio 60'—as I wrote on August 7th after viewing the pilot—is just a bad show. ... So the losers here will be the audience, which is about to be pummelled by more reality and game shows. It’s too bad because around the dial there are good new dramas.
I'm not one to normally beat up critics, but this is a refrain that has been repeated quite frankly -- the claim that Studio 60 is a bad show. In this case, the writer betrays that by saying a cancellation would be bad for the audience because it will lead to more reality and game shows and there aren't enough good dramas on TV. It would seem that if Studio 60 were a bad show, it's cancellation wouldn't be a loss for the audience at all. After saying it's a bad show, the writer ends up defending the show.

I think much of the critical reaction has been a response to the hype or a response to the arrogance of Sorkin, or both. I think the viewer response is different -- I'm not a programming genius, but even I knew that Monday at 9 CT was a horrific time slot for the show, both from competition and compatability. So much is made of the drop off from Heroes to Studio 60, but the problem is that those two shows have nothing in common enough to tie them together, and running back-to-back hour-long dramas is rarely a winning combination. However, as hour long dramas go, CSI: Miami and Heroes are a better fit than Heroes and Studio 60, which is why I'm sure there are people who watch Heroes and then switch to CSI.

Where NBC made the mistake was not moving tired ER and its drooping ratings to another night and plugging Studio 60 there. Studio 60 is a much better fit style wise and demographically with The Office and Earl than it is with Deal or No Deal and Heroes.

[Joe]

I'm not one to normally beat up critics, but this is a refrain that has been repeated quite frankly -- the claim that Studio 60 is a bad show. In this case, the writer betrays that by saying a cancellation would be bad for the audience because it will lead to more reality and game shows and there aren't enough good dramas on TV. It would seem that if Studio 60 were a bad show, it's cancellation wouldn't be a loss for the audience at all. After saying it's a bad show, the writer ends up defending the show.

I think much of the critical reaction has been a response to the hype or a response to the arrogance of Sorkin, or both. I think the viewer response is different -- I'm not a programming genius, but even I knew that Monday at 9 CT was a horrific time slot for the show, both from competition and compatability. So much is made of the drop off from Heroes to Studio 60, but the problem is that those two shows have nothing in common enough to tie them together, and running back-to-back hour-long dramas is rarely a winning combination. However, as hour long dramas go, CSI: Miami and Heroes are a better fit than Heroes and Studio 60, which is why I'm sure there are people who watch Heroes and then switch to CSI.

Where NBC made the mistake was not moving tired ER and its drooping ratings to another night and plugging Studio 60 there. Studio 60 is a much better fit style wise and demographically with The Office and Earl than it is with Deal or No Deal and Heroes.

It was originally planned to be on Thursdays, but NBC got scared to put it up against CSI and Grey's Anatomy in the same time slot.

[Raiders Army]

I think much of the critical reaction has been a response to the hype or a response to the arrogance of Sorkin, or both. I think the viewer response is different -- I'm not a programming genius, but even I knew that Monday at 9 CT was a horrific time slot for the show, both from competition and compatability. So much is made of the drop off from Heroes to Studio 60, but the problem is that those two shows have nothing in common enough to tie them together, and running back-to-back hour-long dramas is rarely a winning combination. However, as hour long dramas go, CSI: Miami and Heroes are a better fit than Heroes and Studio 60, which is why I'm sure there are people who watch Heroes and then switch to CSI.

Where NBC made the mistake was not moving tired ER and its drooping ratings to another night and plugging Studio 60 there. Studio 60 is a much better fit style wise and demographically with The Office and Earl than it is with Deal or No Deal and Heroes.

Well, we used to DVR Studio 60 to watch on Tuesday nights (since we don't watch anything) but we don't anymore because we got tired of the show. I think the bottom line is that it just isn't interesting. We gave it three episodes and nothing was there to bring us back. Couple that with the fact that most of the characters think they're geniuses and it makes for a boring, egotistical show.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Where NBC made the mistake was not moving tired ER and its drooping ratings to another night and plugging Studio 60 there.

Umm ...
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=314&num=7986&printer=1

Last May, even NBC seemed to be losing confidence in “ER.” At the upfront, the network announced that the 13-year-old hospital drama would be replaced for 13 weeks at midseason with the highly touted new drama “The Black Donnellys,” after a season in which “ER’s” adults 18-49 average slipped 28 percent, from a 7.2 to a 5.2.

Two days later, CBS decided to move “Without a Trace” from Thursdays at 10, where it had been sapping “ER’s” ratings, to Sundays. And five months later, “ER” has reestablished itself as the dominant 10 p.m. drama on TV’s most lucrative night. It's one of this season’s biggest shockers.

“ER” has averaged a 6.4 rating thus far this season, up 23 percent over last year’s average, and its household average is also up 21 percent, from an 8.1 to a 9.8.

Part of show’s turnaround is certainly the lighter competition. With “Trace’s” exit from the timeslot. viewers no longer need choose between the two programs, and the show that took “Trace’s” place on CBS, “Shark,” has averaged a 4.1, compared to “Trace’s” 5.6 last year. ABC’s “Six Degrees,” which is averaging a 4.3, hasn’t provided much competition either.

But “ER” has also been stronger creatively this year, with new actors and plotlines giving the show fresh life. John Stamos has come on as a regular, and last week “Frasier’s” John Mahoney gave a moving guest performance as a closeted cross-dresser.

Tonight Forest Whitaker, who’s getting major Oscar buzz for the new movie “The Last King of Scotland,” begins a five-week stint on the show playing a stroke victim suing Kovacs for malpractice.

[larrymcg421]

People also think the Grey's Anatomy move to Thursdays has inadvertently helped out ER. The idea is that people are changing channels at 10pm to create their own 2 hour medical drama block.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'm not one to normally beat up critics, but this is a refrain that has been repeated quite frankly -- the claim that Studio 60 is a bad show. In this case, the writer betrays that by saying a cancellation would be bad for the audience because it will lead to more reality and game shows and there aren't enough good dramas on TV. It would seem that if Studio 60 were a bad show, it's cancellation wouldn't be a loss for the audience at all. After saying it's a bad show, the writer ends up defending the show.

I don't know about this. I think there is a strong argument to be made that even a "bad" drama is much better/preferable than more reality TV/game show crap. I certainly find that to be true.

The failure of shows like this, or "The Nine", or "Friday Night Lights", or any of the other dramas that are struggling or have already been canned, means the networks will be less likely to take risks on more shows like them (hopefully better show) and will instead just go back to the cheaper alternatives.

[Joe Canadian]

Some good news...

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=50417

[kcchief19]

I don't know about this. I think there is a strong argument to be made that even a "bad" drama is much better/preferable than more reality TV/game show crap. I certainly find that to be true.

The failure of shows like this, or "The Nine", or "Friday Night Lights", or any of the other dramas that are struggling or have already been canned, means the networks will be less likely to take risks on more shows like them (hopefully better show) and will instead just go back to the cheaper alternatives.
But that's exactly the problem. Personally, I agree that a "bad" drama is better than a "good" game show. I think most critics would agree to.

But they end up using two different scales to judge these shows. I think many critics are harder on dramas than they are on game shows because they expect more. If you were to poll a group of critics, I think most would say Studio 60 is better than Deal or No Deal. But because they expect so little from game shows and expect so much from dramas, they end trashing bad dramas and giving a pass to good game shows, even if in their perceived view they would rather watch a bad drama instead of a good game show.

But I still don't grant the premise ... I still think much of the negative criticism of the show has more to do with things other than the show.

[kcchief19]

Umm ...
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=314&num=7986&printer=1

Two days later, CBS decided to move “Without a Trace” from Thursdays at 10, where it had been sapping “ER’s” ratings, to Sundays. And five months later, “ER” has reestablished itself as the dominant 10 p.m. drama on TV’s most lucrative night. It's one of this season’s biggest shockers.

ER is 15th in the ratings going up against Shark and Six Degrees. You know more about ratings than I do -- do you consider that an accomplishment? It's relatively easy to be the dominant 10 p.m. drama on Thursday when all the dominant dramas are on at 9 p.m. ER has one-third the audience of CSI and Grey's Anatomy. Just because ER is doing better than its worst season last year doesn't mean it's doing well. I'll also doub it's profitability -- it's the 15th rated show on TV in ratings, but I'll hazard to guess the cost per episode ranks higher than that.

NBC is even ignoring its own history. When Hill Street Blue faded, NBC didn't link to plug a rookie drama (LA Law) in its place and move HSB to another night. Same thing when LA Law aged and was replaced by rookie ER. NBC is trying to grow a drama on another night to move it to Thursday -- which rarely works, Grey's Anatomy exception noted.

I still contend that if NBC had moved ER to another night, they could have temporarily created a tentpole for another night and built it around ER while creating a fresh new look for Thursday night. I don't think The Office/Earl is a good match with ER either.

Jon -- one thing you said earlier I do recognize. I do understand that networks expect shows to perform when there is so much money on the line. What I don't get is that networks don't look at their shrinking audiences and realize something is wrong. They keep tinkering away more and more, yet the more they tinker the less audience they have. I'd argue that the more networks take risks and act boldly, the better they perform. The more timid they act, the worse they perform.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I still contend that if NBC had moved ER to another night, they could have temporarily created a tentpole for another night and built it around ER while creating a fresh new look for Thursday night. I don't think The Office/Earl is a good match with ER either.

Why is that? "Must See TV" was built on the four sitcoms as lead-ins to ER. It was, what, Friends, Seinfeld, a constant stream of rotating shows (that "Single Guy" show, that Tea Leone show, and others). I don't see why Earl/Office would be a particularly worse match than those.

I'd argue that the more networks take risks and act boldly, the better they perform. The more timid they act, the worse they perform.

Yes and no.

I think CBS, for example, has performed very well of late by acting timidly. There was nothing really ground-breaking about CSI. It's a procedural drama with some flare to it. It really caught on. Then CBS proceeded to build off its strength by adding two more identical CSI shows. I'd consider that quite timid. Just like all of NBC's "Law & Orders."

A lot of the reality shows are based off European shows that had success. Importing those shows, at least to me, isn't being all that bold.

"Cop Rock", that was bold. ;) I'd consider "24" bold. And Fox's early days had a lot "bold" programming at the time. It sort of built its foundation off of that stuff.

I dunno... I think a lot of networks have found success in playing it safe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... do you consider that an accomplishment? ...
It's relatively easy to be the dominant 10 p.m. drama on Thursday when all the dominant dramas are on at 9 p.m.

15th is 15th, doesn't matter if it's up against the Super Bowl or re-runs of Morely Safer clipping his toenails. And 10 p.m. success (if all things were equal, which they aren't) is even better than 9 p.m. success if my product is something meant for the weekend. Thursday night 10pm is about as good as it gets for a lot of products.

I'll also doubt it's profitability -- it's the 15th rated show on TV in ratings, but I'll hazard to guess the cost per episode ranks higher than that.


I haven't pulled network primetime rates in a good while, and it's been several months since I've even looked at local market prime, but even in the down period for their ratings, ER was among the most expensive shows to buy time in. Living off the past? Maybe so, but it was still effective when it came to pricing (although I suspect that was somewhat more true on the market level than on the national level).

What I don't get is that networks don't look at their shrinking audiences and realize something is wrong.

Actually, I think most of the powers that be do know that something is wrong. But what's most wrong is that more than 50% of the total available audience has drained away, scattered across a couple of hundred cable channels. And somewhere in there, it becomes the economy of scale (or something like that). A major network can't survive on 80,000 total viewers for a show, that's a couple of zeroes less than what they need. But The Outdoor Channel, BBC America, et al and etc can survive on those. And there's just so blasted many of them that the minnows have eaten about half the whale.

I'd argue that the more networks take risks and act boldly, the better they perform. The more timid they act, the worse they perform.

I tend to fall into the other camp on this, the most successful shows aren't all that risky IMO. Grey's is part soap, part medical drama. The CSI franchise are basically police procedurals. Dancing and Deal/No Deal are variety & game shows which have been around forever. Housewives is a modern day Peyton Place.

The only successful shows right now that are even a bit off the beaten path are probably Earl, Office,with Heroes as this year's token quirky hit. Maybe Lost fits in there too, although it might almost be categorized as a serial drama too.

In order to pull "network sized" numbers in today's media landscape, the networks have to pull from multiple demographics. And the broader the target, the more homogenized the product, hence the "safer" programs putting up bigger numbers. It's a push-pull on this, too narrow & the numbers are too small. Too broad (perhaps aka too safe) and viewers slip away elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, the only real hope broadcast TV has to ever come close to the numbers they'd like to be pulling is if something kills cable entirely (they're big fans of the proposed ala carte system). Otherwise, the viewing audience is likely to remain as fragmented as it is today, where we haven't quite gotten to every person having their own channel, but we ain't that far from it either.

[Joe]

From Studio Briefing 11/1/2006

NBC Chief Says 'Studio 60' Will Stay

NBC Universal CEO Robert Wright has denied reports that Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is about to be canceled. In an interview with FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman, who originally quoted insiders as saying that the show was about to be yanked from the network's schedule, Wright said such a move was unlikely because "We have too much money invested in it. ... I think it will go on."

[Joe Canadian]

From Studio Briefing 11/1/2006

NBC Chief Says 'Studio 60' Will Stay

NBC Universal CEO Robert Wright has denied reports that Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is about to be canceled. In an interview with FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman, who originally quoted insiders as saying that the show was about to be yanked from the network's schedule, Wright said such a move was unlikely because "We have too much money invested in it. ... I think it will go on."

Great! Now if they can only continue the good writing that was in the last episode!

[larrymcg421]

Studio 60's average at Monday 10 pm - 6.3/10
Friday Night Lights last Monday at 10pm - 5.7/10

[JonInMiddleGA]

Studio 60's average at Monday 10 pm - 6.3/10
Friday Night Lights last Monday at 10pm - 5.7/10

I'm not sure what those numbers are supposed to be, households maybe?

Because the numbers for FNL and Strip are being reported & discussed for 18-49 pretty much everywhere I've seen as being about the same (for the Monday night special airing).

And 18-49 numbers for Strip were averaging only 4.2 through the first four weeks (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=314&num=7898) and I'm pretty sure they didn't improve enough between now & then to get anywhere near a 6 for an average.

edit to add: Actually, they've pulled a 3.1 and a 3.2 in A18-49 since that 4.2 average cited in the article, so they're going in the other direction. Right now, the more people see of 60, the less people watch it.

[Joe Canadian]

I didn't realize this until my dad pointed it out to me, but the old guy from "The Wrap Party" episode is Eli Wallach... the guy that played Tuco (The Ugly), in the movie The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.

[Ksyrup]

From today's Media Life Mag website:

Despite the tough competition, NBC’s “Heroes” hit another series-best, averaging a 6.6 at 9 p.m. and recording the highest rating for any new show this season.

For the evening, ABC averaged a 5.4 rating and 13 share, followed by NBC at 4.8/12, CBS at 4.3/11, Fox at 2.7/6, Univision at 1.7/4, and the CW at 1.4/3.

At 8 p.m., ABC’s CMA led with a 4.9, followed by NBC’s “Deal or No Deal” at 4.4, Fox’s “Prison Break” at 3.5, CBS’s “How I Met Your Mother” (3.3) and “The Class” (2.9) at 3.1, Univision’s “La Fea Mas Bella” at 2.1, and CW’s “Everybody Hates Chris” (1.4) and “All of Us” at 1.4.

At 9 p.m., “Heroes” led with a 6.6, followed by CMA at 5.9, CBS’s “Two and a Half Men” (4.7) and “The New Adventures of Old Christine” (3.7) at 4.2, Fox’s “Justice” at 1.8, Univision’s “Mundo de Fieras” at 1.6, and the CW’s “Girlfriends” (1.4) and “The Game” (1.3) at 1.3.

At 10 p.m., CBS’s “CSI: Miami” led with a 5.6, followed by ABC’s CMA at 5.2, NBC’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” at 3.3, and Univision’s “Cristina” at 1.5.

[digamma]

Last night's episode was painful to watch.

[Butter]

I have 3 episodes of this on my DVR, yet I'm not compelled to watch them. I guess that's not a great sign.

[kcchief19]

15th is 15th, doesn't matter if it's up against the Super Bowl or re-runs of Morely Safer clipping his toenails. And 10 p.m. success (if all things were equal, which they aren't) is even better than 9 p.m. success if my product is something meant for the weekend. Thursday night 10pm is about as good as it gets for a lot of products.
In a vacuum, I agree. My thought is that when a former No. 1 show is celebrating an upsurge in viewers because they're 15th, the show has eroded. ER isn't a tentpole anymore than can carry the rest of the night, and I think it's only going to get worse. Where will NBC be in two years when ER's ratings have completely eroded and they have nothing to move in its place? To me, the conservative thing to do is to launch a show on another night and move it to Thursday. The risky thing to do is to move ER to another night during its waning years and try to reenergize Thursday night. I also completely agree that's a much easier decision in my seat than it is in a seat at 30 Rock.
Actually, I think most of the powers that be do know that something is wrong. But what's most wrong is that more than 50% of the total available audience has drained away, scattered across a couple of hundred cable channels. And somewhere in there, it becomes the economy of scale (or something like that). A major network can't survive on 80,000 total viewers for a show, that's a couple of zeroes less than what they need. But The Outdoor Channel, BBC America, et al and etc can survive on those. And there's just so blasted many of them that the minnows have eaten about half the whale.
I think they know too, but I think they make really dumb decisions about how to get viewers back. Case in point -- NBC this summer tested both Bravo's Project Runway and USA's Psych in a primetime slot on Monday's. The ratings were horrible, but they were also both reruns of shows just a few says old. Based on the ratings for the original airings and including multiple repeats already aired on cable, I have no doubt that 4-7 million people had already seen the shows. No wonder the ratings tanked. NBC also tried Battlestar Galactica out by airing an edited version of the pilot movie -- on a Saturday night in December. I think 2 of those 3 shows would be a hit on network primetime, but not with reruns in bad timeslots. I don't discount that there's a huge erosion of the audience to the hundreds of cable channels, but I think one reason the cable outlets are drawing audiences is that some of their shows are better than what's on network TV.
I tend to fall into the other camp on this, the most successful shows aren't all that risky IMO. Grey's is part soap, part medical drama. The CSI franchise are basically police procedurals. Dancing and Deal/No Deal are variety & game shows which have been around forever. Housewives is a modern day Peyton Place.
I absolutely agree with this largely in concept. I don't think Grey's Anatomy and CSI are particularly edgy either. CSI is essentially Law & Order. But ABC intentionally tried to play it safe when they put WWTBAM on five times a week and it exploded in their face. Then they roll out Lost and Housewives at a time when some people thought episodic dramas were toast. 24 was a cutting edge concept too. I think The Office and Earl are concept shows too. I think the easiest thing you can do as a network is put on low-budget shows (i.e. reality shows) and hope for a big audience. Any high-budget scripted show is a much bigger risk.

As far as I can tell, the only real hope broadcast TV has to ever come close to the numbers they'd like to be pulling is if something kills cable entirely (they're big fans of the proposed ala carte system).
I'm interested in how you feel about ala carte. Among the people I talk with, I'm amazed at how effective the ala carte pitch has been. I understand the appeal of "get what you pay for," but I suppose I watch enough shows on non-mainstream channels that the idea of paying $3 a month just so I can have Bravo or the History Channel. It's a necessary evil, but the current structure of cable definitely benfits me because I want the most number of channels at the lowest price. I think ala carte would kill a ton of cable networks.

[kcchief19]

Last night's episode was painful to watch.
Back off threadjack, I cringed from the beginning. I abhor the two-part episode unless the episodes air back-to-back first of all. Secondly, I think we're all tiring of the religion plot. We get it.

I like the actors, I love the production and I love most of the writing. If Sorkin would just get off his high horse about the religious right. I thought he dealt with religious on The West Wing much better. Perhaps it's just that he's beating a dead horse that it's annoying me.

Worst. Episode. Yet.

[rkmsuf]

At 10 p.m., CBS’s “CSI: Miami” led with a 5.6, followed by ABC’s CMA at 5.2, NBC’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” at 3.3, and Univision’s “Cristina” at 1.5.

Go Univision!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm interested in how you feel about ala carte.


I think it's probably the worst idea to come along in mass media in the past, oh, 30 years.

-- it will be the end of 80% of all cable networks which in turn
-- will be the end of 80%+ of the shows I currently watch (and I don't watch all that many hours a week as it is)

That personal impact aside, the ultimate impact will be an increase in the cost to virtually every cable tv subscriber in the country.

Problem is, not enough people understand how it works to understand how it will end up that way. (Trust me, it took me a good two hours of painstakingly going through the process just to get my father to begin to understand it, and even still he has a hard time looking past "yeah, but I wouldn't have to pay that flat rate bill each month").

[Malificent]

Back off threadjack, I cringed from the beginning. I abhor the two-part episode unless the episodes air back-to-back first of all. Secondly, I think we're all tiring of the religion plot. We get it.

I like the actors, I love the production and I love most of the writing. If Sorkin would just get off his high horse about the religious right. I thought he dealt with religious on The West Wing much better. Perhaps it's just that he's beating a dead horse that it's annoying me.

Worst. Episode. Yet.

I must be completely out of the loop because I really enjoyed the episode, but it was the comedy of errors thing that made it for me.

[lordscarlet]

I think it's probably the worst idea to come along in mass media in the past, oh, 30 years.

-- it will be the end of 80% of all cable networks which in turn
-- will be the end of 80%+ of the shows I currently watch (and I don't watch all that many hours a week as it is)

That personal impact aside, the ultimate impact will be an increase in the cost to virtually every cable tv subscriber in the country.

Problem is, not enough people understand how it works to understand how it will end up that way. (Trust me, it took me a good two hours of painstakingly going through the process just to get my father to begin to understand it, and even still he has a hard time looking past "yeah, but I wouldn't have to pay that flat rate bill each month").

Honestly, I'm not sure why I even pay for cable (well, DirecTV). 95% of what I watch is on a network. If my Tivo weren't a DirecTivo I would consider cancelling it and getting the HBO shows from Netflix (I would only miss BSG, which I could also do on DVD, South Park, the same, ESPN and Small Space, Big Style).

[Celeval]

Huh, yeah - I really enjoyed last night's episode.

[wade moore]

Huh, yeah - I really enjoyed last night's episode.
"

[IMetTrentGreen]

Maybe this new show that Jordan greenlighted will become an issue, but I doubt it.

i think this element, like a couple others, are aaron sorkin's life being written into the show.

the director with a crank habit. the bit about upscale viewers (a real nbc exec trotted that line out a couple weeks ago about this show, im guessing sorkin has heard it before about his shows), the skeptical execs with u.n. show (west wing maybe).

some guesses, but i sense a lot of personal stuff with sorkin this go round.

[Draft Dodger]

I think this was the best episode yet, by a wide margin

[lordscarlet]

I think this was the best episode yet, by a wide margin

I thought the previous one was.

[primelord]

I didn't think this one was the best, but I enjoyed it quite a bit