The clock is ticking for '24' and 'Studio 60'

BURBANK, Calif. — Ask Aaron Sorkin what's wrong with "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," his television show about a television show, and his answer will tell you everything.

It will tell you why NBC is placing such great faith in Sorkin, why it came back to him after the stormy four-year span when he created "The West Wing," wrote the lion's share of its episodes and created enough backstage drama to fill, well, another prime-time TV series.

But it will also tell you why this stubborn, charming, tormented and often hilarious talent may be doomed to go down with his ship.

At 9 p.m. CT Monday on KSHB-TV, NBC will air the first of seven new episodes of "Studio 60." At least that's the plan. But with ratings hovering near all-time record lows for that time period, "Studio 60" is on life support. Any other show, from anyone other than the dynamic duo of Sorkin and producer Thomas Schlamme, would surely be gone by now.

Production on the "Studio 60" set - which is not on the Sunset Strip but the WB lot in Burbank - halted briefly last week as a swarm of TV critics and reporters toured the set and interviewed the principals. As usual, Sorkin gathered the most voice recorders and gave us plenty worth playing back.

"I'm not particularly sophisticated when it comes to ratings," he began. "But I can tell you this: Our audience is 10 percent bigger than you think it is." That's because "Studio 60" is the most TiVo-ed show on TV. But since time-shifters are thought to be ad-skippers, Nielsen doesn't count them.

"When I compare the size of the 'Studio 60' audience to the size of the 'Sports Night' audience, I'm delighted," said Sorkin, drawing laughs from critics who fondly remembered his low-rated show from the late 1990s.

"Would we like more people to come to the show? You bet. But there isn't a lot we can do creatively. I think it's a mistake to do things creatively to attract that audience."

That said, and listen for the gear shift, "we happen to be falling into a period where there's a lot of romantic comedy on the show. Hopefully that will bring some people who otherwise wouldn't have been interested in the show."

When asked if he hadn't just contradicted himself, he said: "No, I think the romantic comedy was there all along. I planted it in there with Matthew Perry's and Sarah Paulson's characters. What I didn't write into the pilot was Amanda Peet getting pregnant." Hence the late-gestating hookup between Peet's character and Bradley Whitford's.

Funny, though ... I have the original press materials for "Studio 60," and there is only a fleeting mention of romance in the show description. What NBC was promising critics in July was, rather, "a crackling take on the drama behind the humor of producing a popular, late-night comedy sketch show."

Oh, yes, the humor part. A critic brought that up: Why are the comedy sketches on the show so lame?

"If enough people tell you one thing, it's got to be a little bit true," Sorkin said contritely. And then, a defense.

"All I was trying to show you was: Here they are doing the show. I was trying to give it the feel of a sketch comedy show, the way that on 'Sports Night' we would do a few moments of sports news or on 'West Wing' there'd be just a few moments of chatter about the Council of Economic Advisers.

"I think if you saw a random 10 seconds of 'Wayne's World' or a random 10 seconds of 'The Coneheads,' or some other sketch ... you wouldn't think it was funny. You wouldn't get it. So ... you're not supposed to be finding this funny. You're supposed to be finding this a rehearsal."

So there you go. Save your belly laughs for "Slings & Arrows."

>>> Sorkin in his own words: Download the TV Barn Podcast

Also airing tonight is the fifth hour of "24" (8 p.m. CT Monday, Fox 4), though I'm not sure all viewers have recovered from last week's white-knuckle opening, which featured Jack Bauer severing the jugular of a kidnapper with his teeth, torturing a terror suspect with a knife and watching helplessly as a mushroom cloud rose above (far) suburban L.A.

On a set visit to CTU, the supersecret headquarters of "24," last week, I asked Kiefer Sutherland about that torture scene.

"I liked that," he said cheerily. "When we actually got down to shooting it, I was looking for a piece of cantaloupe to put in my mouth so when I spit that out, that's going to be his Adam's apple. That's when we all started to act like we were 7 years old: How gross can we make it?"

Amazingly, Fox's censor had no problem with the biting scene.

"They had a problem with the fact he was spitting it out," said Jon Cassar, who directed the episode. "They had a bigger problem with Episode 2, where Assad (Alexander Siddig) puts a knife in the guy's knee. And it was a sound-effect problem. You didn't see anything, just a hand going into a knee. But the sound was so gruesome, they made us pull it back. They made us pull back a sound effect. People's stomachs were turning."

Like yours is now.

Comments

[M. Bess]

This article sucked.

[Mark Jeffries]

Thank you, Butt-Head. Could you share with us your reasons why the article sucked, or are you too busy putting hamsters in the deep fryer?

[snowslide]

Hamsters in the deep fryer? Sounds like someone has issues...

[T Dog]

No it didn't. Well written as always, Aaron.

[Aaron]

Thanks. Beavis made me laugh.

[Rex]

I love Studio 60. I can't understand why it would it's not doing better. Compared to the gross-out fest that is "24", Studio 60 is SO much better. It's intelligent, witty and does not rely on gun-fire, blood & guts, crime, or overt sexuality to move the plot. Much more realistic than "24" and the cast is incredible. There is not another show on TV now with this kind of writing, casting and decent plot. I have been impatiently waiting for its return since the last episode in December and will be hugely disappointed if the network cancels it.

If anyone asked me, I would say, "DO NOT CANCEL STUDIO 60! It's the best show on TV right now."

Rex

[Nathan]

Sadly, TV is many times a "bottom line" business, and numbers tell the story.

Studio 60 has a lot of great aspects, but at the same time, it's having a helluva time living up to the hype. I think that's where the mistake took place. NBC hyped this show as the next best thing to.....well, The West Wing.

But, The West Wing took a huge dive for me, when Sorkin left and John Wells began mirroring current events in the show. One thing Sorkin can do better than most is writing a good story and not basing it on last night's nightly newscast.

I wish that Studio 60 wasn't in the position of having to prove itself each week. If NBC hadn't made the show out to be the one thing that the entire world will stop their lives for and watch, then the show might actually have been a huge hit.

In a very twisted way, it's like that movie Snakes on a Plane. Why market a film as a cult classic before it's even released? Doesn't cult classic status have to earned?

[Don K]

They're right, though, "Slings & Arrows" is funnier (not to mention probably a better drama) than Studio 60 is.

[Aaron]

Season 3 is coming and it's going to knock you on your keister.

[KL]

I agree with Rex. I totally enjoy Studio 60. It's intelligent, witty, and funny. I even think the skits are funny and fresh. I'm certainly hoping that Studio 60 is around for a while.

[Delbert Farr]

They should take the humor from "30 Rock" and inject it into "Studio 60."

So, biting and ripping out a guy's jugular or adam's apple is okay, as is a knee slicing, but a half second of Janet Jackson's nipple is not. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.

[Nathan]

I think that the only funny thing about 30 Rock is Alec Baldwin. The rest of the show is as unfunny as he is funny.

Tina Fey lost her touch for comedy some years ago on SNL, and I think that without Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock would have bombed.

[Dave]

Current ratings

"Studio 60" 4.7/8,
"Scrubs," 4.1/6
"30 Rock", 3.4/5

Perhaps in a future column, Mr. Barnhart can tell readers why he has a seemingly vitriolic hatred of Aaron Sorkin.
Did Aaron insult his mother? Kill his dog? Try to date his wife?
Mr. Barnhart didn't like Sports Night (fine many people didn't or it would have done better) .
- said that West Wing *improved* after Sorkin left (which is really ludicrous) and now prefaces almost EVERY statement on ANY subject with a slap at Sorkin or the show.

[Nikki]

I like Studio 60 as well and I think most of the skits are funny. Certainly funnier than SNL these days. Certainly better than almost any other show on TV. I don't know why everyone is so negative, so what if it didn't end up being the Second Coming of Christ, it is still a good show. Also, there are tons of crappy shows for people to watch, good for them, now back off and leave me to enjoy one show.

[Aaron]

Hey Dave, speaking of vitriolic, why don't you find me the column, podcast or anything else that suggests I didn't like Sports Night. You won't because you can't. For what it was, SN was a lot of fun, but its time was undeniably up after two years. And saying the last season of WW was an improvement over seasons 5 and 6 is not the same thing as saying what you say I said. So stop saying it.

[Aaron]

Also, with the HUT levels available to Studio 60 at 10 p.m. ET, and with "Heroes" as its lead-out, the bar is higher than for the sitcoms.

[Tad Sketchy]

Actually, Sports Night jumped the shark in Season 2 when Sorkin made Dana a total airhead. Here's this professional woman running a nightly television sports news show, and she can't decide whether or not to date somebody? Please.

[Roy]

Nielsen does indeed count people who TiVo or DVR a show (and watch within 7 days). It's Madison Avenue that doesn't count them. At least, not this season.

[nathan]

Mr. Barnhart, I must say that, while I disagree with much of you critique Aaron Sorkin and his work (and much of your stance on current tv media), I do understand it.

I think that if I wasn't such a big fan of his writing and Schlamme's directing, I don't think I'd enjoy Studio 60 very much. But...I give it a chance every week, and the more I do the more I enjoy it. I think Sorkin's defense in the podcast was simply that -- a defense. Which, to me, is ok. If there was reason to explain himself, he took the opportunity, and I respect that much more than if he had chosen to snub the questions and deflect them. That would have been a gesture far more in need of critique and debate that what actually did happen in the podcast.

To pull something from Sports Night:
"If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."

I always enjoy reading the work critics that I disagree with. It gives me a legitimate reason to watch stuff on tv.

[James]

Mr. Barnhardt,

I agree with an earlier post that you seem to have some on-going hatred of Aaron Sorkin. The tone of your article is attacking of Mr. Sorkin and not the shows perceived problems. You even invite people to "drive a stake" into the show. Disgusting, you are meant to be a journalist. You have to understand that the point of only showing some of the skits is to bring validity to the fact that it is a T.V. show. If they were trained comics and it was a comedy show then humor of the skits would be essential. Is Mr. Sorkin a model citizen-no. But he is an extremely talented writer and thank God for a show like "Studio 60". I love having a show on the air that doesn't insult my intelligence. I, like several of my friends are just as Mr. Sorkin describes-Tivo people.

If I am to blame anyone for the shows poor performance it is NBC. Why would you air Studio 60 against Monday Night Football? Even those described up-scale viewers are watching football. They should have placed it on Tuesday or Thursday with an Office lead-in. It will be a sad when this show ends. I would watch an infomercial in Aaron Sorkin wrote it.

[Aaron]

Well, it just shows that people will believe what they want. Never mind that the show is one of the lowest-rated in the history of NBC's third hour of prime, despite one of the most awesome displays of NBC promotional firepower in the weeks and months leading up to S60's debut. No, it's the critic's fault for making a rhyming couplet.

And by the way, dude, if a show has to be protected from a show that airs on CABLE, then it is in seriously weak shape.

[nathan]

LOL.

Incredibly good point, sir.

I still think it was NBC's promotional firepower that brought such strong scrutiny to S60.

I think if it had just been marketed as just any other show, maybe it only would be receiving "proportional scrutiny". :)

All the best,
N

[BlairBitchProject]

>>Never mind that the show is one of the lowest-rated in the history of NBC's third hour of prime, despite one of the most awesome displays of NBC promotional firepower in the weeks and months leading up to S60's debut. No, it's the critic's fault for making a rhyming couplet.<<

The issue, sir, is your venom--not the ratings and not your couplet--and it affects the quality of your work. While Sorkin may be under the mistaken notion that there is little room for improvement, his fantasy is nothing compared to yours, which is that constantly berating his show and ability qualifies as journalism or entertainment.

The truth is, it was HE who brought me to this site and not you. And now that I've seen what you're about, it is because of YOU that I will not revisit this site. I never heard of you before, so there are your ratings.

Your swiss cheese (and I use this word charitably) argument over whether the romance in the show is contrived for gaining audience seems itself contrived. I did not get from his statement that he was stepping up the romance for ratings, but that he was stepping it up, period. Sorkin's shows are always heavy with romance, and if you were doing your journalistic job (read "giving attention to your subject matter prior to writing") you'd either already know that or you'd have taken the trouble to find that out. Sorkin was asked a question about ratings, and he responded that he hoped that the romantic comedy would help with those, not that he had written it to do so. His track record with romantic comedy speaks for itself: I invite you to refer to more than, say, three episodes of any of his TV shows where romantic comedy WASN'T present. It's often a major drive in his shows, and almost always for more than one character in every episode.

But what's really sad about your contrived beef is that it makes it difficult for one to pay attention to your on-target point: that the sketches on S60 aren't particularly funny, and that, yes, he came across as rather self-serving there. There was so much that a legitimate journalist could have jumped on there: that the show's PREMISE is based around funny sketches, so why not ensure that they, in fact, are funny? It's not like they didn't have the money and contacts to do that. It's not like no one could see that coming. Yet...you not only didn't give that any thought--you didn't even make an attempt to critique it.

Given the need to trump up a charge against him (time and time again), it's difficult not to see this as jealousy. If you must envy the man for something, let it be his willingness to discuss criticism of his work openly and respectfully; your critiques and responses smack of a man trying to compensate for more than literary shortcomings.

[jimmy]

I don't quite see where the anti-Aaron Sorkin bias is in this article. It doesn't seem terribly vitriolic. Anyways, it's probably because I haven't read any of Barnhart's other work on the subject, or actually seen Studio 60.

[nathwhiz]

The artcile itself isn't as bad as I assumed after hearing the podcast, but it DOES take negative slants. Sorkin was asked a question and he answered it, honestly. He was then accused of "being defensive". That's the kind of BS journalistic spin that shows the bias.
There were other points of contention, but I won't waste my time listing them as I doubt the "journalist" would listen to them. Oddly enough, what he accused Mr. Sorkin of doing, or not doing as this case may be.