Studio 60 ... S01E04 "The West Coast Delay" OAD: 10-9-2006 *spoilers*

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by terpfan1980, Oct 9, 2006.

  1. Oct 9, 2006 #1 of 154
    terpfan1980

    terpfan1980 It's Just TV TCF Club

    23,027
    1,379
    Jan 28, 2002
    Xbox Live:...
    Wow, lots of work to try to get a joke properly attributed.

    I enjoyed the show though, and was still wanting more when it ended.
     
  2. Oct 9, 2006 #2 of 154
    LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    39,183
    2,237
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    Man, who'd think that a show about a sketch comedy show would keep me on the edge of my seat, and laughing, at the same time? That was AWESOME. Rather unrealistic, probably, but still hilarious!

    I guess I question the need to go live, rather than a press release the next morning. Plus, in the "real world," they'd find a sketch in the library of the same (or close to the same) length to queue up if they did need to drop a sketch.
     
  3. Oct 9, 2006 #3 of 154
    Rob Helmerichs

    Rob Helmerichs I am Groot! TCF Club

    51,158
    8,254
    Oct 17, 2000
    Minneapolis
    My guess is that for the initial broadcast, they have the faintest glimmer of a defense, but since they knew about the plagiarism before the West Coast broadcast, that would be indisputably a deliberate act. So they HAD to remove the skit, and thus they had to replace it with something.
     
  4. Oct 9, 2006 #4 of 154
    zync

    zync Long live TiVo

    447
    3
    Feb 21, 2003
    Its pretty neat to see Sorkin back at work. You can tell its from the same guy who did West Wing :)
     
  5. Oct 9, 2006 #5 of 154
    madscientist

    madscientist Deregistered Snoozer

    4,665
    312
    Nov 12, 2003
    Lexington, MA
    I liked the show, but as Loadstar says it was way unrealistic. They use stolen material, which then itself turns out to be stolen... from a guy who wrote it during the one season he just happened to be working at S60? Riiiiiiight.

    Stupid, too, because they could have just had the original writer who suggested it be the one it was stolen from in the first place... they would have had to have that guy be somehow unavailable to confirm/deny this after the show but I would have much more easily bought that than the insane coincidence they actually used.

    Still, I liked the ep a lot ("tell Jordan I'm not 15..." along with the obvious and completely predictable, but still funny, "Matt on the other hand...")
     
  6. Oct 9, 2006 #6 of 154
    modnar

    modnar Active Member

    1,969
    18
    Oct 15, 2000
    Arkansas, USA
    Another great episode.

    I question if a reporter would/should be influencing her subject by pointing out the video of the other comedian doing the bit, but it's a minor nit pick.
     
  7. Oct 9, 2006 #7 of 154
    Sadara

    Sadara huh?

    3,179
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Wichita, KS
    I swear we had to pause the Tivo about 10 times or more tonight, just so we could get our laughing out of our system before we moved on in the show, we didn't want to miss a thing!!

    That neck snap Matt did was replayed a couple of times, too funny!! This one is a keeper, I love this show, it's a great Monday show too!! Great way to end a Monday, laughing!!
     
  8. Oct 9, 2006 #8 of 154
    rawbi01

    rawbi01 Go Bucks!

    1,222
    0
    Oct 12, 2005
    Northeast Ohio
    I watched the show today wondering if I was going to keep the SP. The answer is yes. I thought it was very good. I liked the comment to the reporter " by the way, nice rack"
     
  9. Oct 9, 2006 #9 of 154
    busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    I thought Nate Corddry did an excellent job this episode. Finally we got to see what he could do when they actually gave him some material to work with.
     
  10. Oct 10, 2006 #10 of 154
    drew2k

    drew2k Drew != Drawn

    4,864
    0
    Jun 9, 2003
    Long Island, NY
    I thought this was the best episode of Studio 60 so far, and love the idea that Christine Lahti will be a frequent guest star. I also liked that there were no Jack sightings and only one Jack shout-out. :)

    Someone needs to explain the 7-second discussion Danny had with the director. They needed to replace 90 seconds with new material, but the said they needed to subtract 7 seconds. Why? The new live portion would have been right out of a commercial break, and should have run 90 seconds, but instead they were only running 83 seconds? I am baffled by this ...
     
  11. Oct 10, 2006 #11 of 154
    LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    39,183
    2,237
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    Well, I don't see any reason for her NOT to point out the video. It really doesn't affect the bias of the article... and in fact, it gives her more material to write about.

    Probably the most distracting part about the episode - the entire B-plot, but particularly the part with Matt going to the Roxy. First off, obviously they were trying to portray a "Pussycat Dolls" type group... but couldn't they come up with a better name than "Bombshell Babies"?!? Seriously corny as heck.

    Second, the whole bit just didn't flow at all... I mean, none of the reactions were what I'd expect, the whole scene just kind of landed like a ton of bricks. None of the interaction between Matt and this chick worked... it never sold the fact that they (apparently) dated, and for her to hand over her boot with a personalized inscription without so much as a blink of an eye? What the heck?

    But past that, the whole bat bit also just never rang true. "I thought it was his uniform number"? Um, you'd have to be more blonde than Jessica Simpson (no offense to any blondes reading this, of course) to mistake a 7 digit number for a uniform number. It wasn't believable at all.
     
  12. Oct 10, 2006 #12 of 154
    Sadara

    Sadara huh?

    3,179
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Wichita, KS
    I was baffled too, I'm trying not to think about it, that whole conversation during the show confused me..... lol
     
  13. Oct 10, 2006 #13 of 154
    LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    39,183
    2,237
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    It was a mostly meaningless argument. What they were arguing about was trying to match up timing so that the live bits actually match up correctly with the feed being sent from the broadcast center. If they didn't match it up correctly, they could come in early or late, and it would look really, really ugly to the viewers.

    It wasn't the length of the re-written segment they were arguing about... it was just regarding when precisely they needed to start sending the feed.
     
  14. Oct 10, 2006 #14 of 154
    busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    Under normal circumstances they would be broadcasting a videotaped show with no delay. Now, they are jumping into the middle of the taped broadcast with a live segment. The live segment has a 7-second delay but the tape replay doesn't, so they actually have to start broadcasting the live portion 7 seconds earlier than when they want it to be broadcast in order for their segment to sync up with the portion of the taped broadcast that they want to replace.

    If they didn't subtract seven seconds from their timing, they would end up broadcasting seven more seconds of the tape than they would have wanted to.


    edit: must... type... faster.... :D
     
  15. Oct 10, 2006 #15 of 154
    busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    What they were arguing about was trying to remember if they have to go seven seconds early or seven seconds late.
     
  16. Oct 10, 2006 #16 of 154
    LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    39,183
    2,237
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    Of course, the issue with the timing is precisely why, in the real world, I'd imagine they'd just do a quick search through the tape library for an old show segment of a similar length, send it on over to the broadcast center, and have it subbed in. If it's not precisely the same length, they'd add a title graphic and music to vamp it out to the right length.

    Then, all they'd need to do is just issue an apology the next morning. No fuss, no muss.
     
  17. Oct 10, 2006 #17 of 154
    drew2k

    drew2k Drew != Drawn

    4,864
    0
    Jun 9, 2003
    Long Island, NY
    That makes sense ... thanks.
     
  18. Oct 10, 2006 #18 of 154
    vman41

    vman41 Omega Consumer

    10,743
    498
    Jun 18, 2002
    I had a hard time with the guys protecting the writer who plagarized. The network may have owned the skit, so they couldn't get sued, but the writer was still trying to pass it off as his own. They are all going to trust him to not try it again? They really must be smoking stuff.
     
  19. Oct 10, 2006 #19 of 154
    LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    39,183
    2,237
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    Ok, the more I think about this episode, the less and less logic there was to it. The latest thing that's bugged me...

    They're supposedly "on the Sunset Strip" in Hollywood, right? And it's a Friday night? The only group of people they could find in HOLLYWOOD are a bunch of homeless people? Granted, it's after midnight, but they couldn't have found some nearby club and emptied it out, paid the entire place to see a special performance of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip?"
     
  20. Oct 10, 2006 #20 of 154
    teknikel

    teknikel Member

    848
    17
    Jan 27, 2002
    Baltimore
    Does Sorkin have a thing for cricket games in India or what?

    As soon as they asked for a game score, my thoughts went to that Sports Night ep.

    Anyone remember it?

    My other first thought was that the writer that gave the idea had given it to Lenny Gold as well.

    Load, I think think she was putting him on about the phone number being his uniform #.

    Didn't love this ep except as a former TV guy seeing how the characters act. There are many people I "recognize" here. Especially Tim Busfield's director.
     

Share This Page