Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

:

Season 1
  • Network: NBC
  • Series Premiere Date: Sep 18, 2006
User Score
8.3

Universal acclaim- based on 329 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 271 out of 329
  2. Mixed: 18 out of 329
  3. Negative: 40 out of 329
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Buy on
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. ChuckFarley
    Feb 11, 2013
    2
    I'm pretty sure this was sorkin's punishment for west wing. you'll probably enjoy this if you are thirty-something female who believes in fairies or will watch anything with 'angel' in the title.
  2. BryanS
    Oct 2, 2006
    2
    Should be renamed Studio Sucky. I can't believe that this show would retain its market share audience.
  3. PaulM
    Oct 8, 2006
    0
    This show hs two main problems: It's modeled after "The West Wing" and it's very preachy. The characters are filled with the self importance of a staff that's running the country, not one that's in charge of a comedy show. You would think that making weekly comedy skits would be a fun job, but all of the characters seem to be suffering from angst and anxiety. This show hs two main problems: It's modeled after "The West Wing" and it's very preachy. The characters are filled with the self importance of a staff that's running the country, not one that's in charge of a comedy show. You would think that making weekly comedy skits would be a fun job, but all of the characters seem to be suffering from angst and anxiety. They're fearful of repercussions from poking fun at the Bush Administration. Why? We live in an open society and the republicans are criticized nightly by Leno, Letterman, Stewart, and O"Brien. The gestapo hasn't knocked on any of their doors. And what's the obsession with Christians? The attempts to make them seem uptight and foolish is not very subtle. What will happen if you mock the evangelicals or the Pope? Maybe a nun will ring your doorbell and rap you on the knuckles with a ruler, but I doubt it. On the othetr hand, if you did a skit about Muslims......… Expand
  4. DevinE.
    Sep 19, 2006
    2
    I can't believe all the positive reviews I'm reading. Has everyone gone insane? This show is terrible!!! Yes, the cast is great, but the show is BORING. And confusing. And the mystery sketch is "Crazy Christians"? Wow. Swing and a miss. Open your eyes, people!
  5. RickC.
    Oct 1, 2006
    1
    Gave this show 3 episodes to convince me. Hate to say that I hope this doesn't stick around. I'm a big Matthew Perry fan, but ... this show doesn't work on many levels. The dialog is sometimes too smart for itself, and the scenes ot the skits are almost cringe-worthy in terms of how unfunny and amateuristic they appear . Even SNL at its worst would never have such formulaic Gave this show 3 episodes to convince me. Hate to say that I hope this doesn't stick around. I'm a big Matthew Perry fan, but ... this show doesn't work on many levels. The dialog is sometimes too smart for itself, and the scenes ot the skits are almost cringe-worthy in terms of how unfunny and amateuristic they appear . Even SNL at its worst would never have such formulaic garbage as the "Nicolas Cage Show" and the golfer sketch performed in the third episode. Even the choice of guests on the show doesn't seem real ... Gwen Stefani and *Rob Reiner*? Rob REINER? This show is supposed to be happening in current time (according to the "Iraq War" bits)...so why get someone so anachronistic as Rob Reiner? Was Phyllis Diller unavailable? At least Stefani is relevant in this century. I tired very easily of the Jordan and Jack dynamic, and the same for the 'chemistry' between Danny and Matt. As for Simon and Tom I still don't care about them at all after three episodes. The Harriet character seems to be either too much of an in-joke or an easy target. Speaking of targets, how many times do we have to hear about "the Christian Right". Do the writers in this show have a competition to see how many times that term can be used between the 'skit' scenes and the 'real scenes'? They seem to be running at a dead heat, and the end result is me getting bored and switching off. I knew "Sport Night" and "West Wing" and this is neither. Unfortunately Matt will be joining most of his other "Friends" looking for work soon, i think.… Expand
  6. JohnF
    Oct 1, 2006
    1
    Probably the worst new show this year. No one is interested in another liberal show, especially one about SNL. What a yawner. SNL is dead and making a show about the making of that snoozer does not make good tv.
  7. jj
    Oct 16, 2006
    3
    I couldn't be a bigger fan of The West Wing - I thought it was the best show ever written, acted and directed. Accordingly, I couldn't be a bigger fan Aaron Sorkin or Tommy Schlamme - and ditto that for many of the Studio 60 cast members, as well. That being my experience, I am extremely surprised to find the Studio 60 script so unfocused, with so little cohesive driving force I couldn't be a bigger fan of The West Wing - I thought it was the best show ever written, acted and directed. Accordingly, I couldn't be a bigger fan Aaron Sorkin or Tommy Schlamme - and ditto that for many of the Studio 60 cast members, as well. That being my experience, I am extremely surprised to find the Studio 60 script so unfocused, with so little cohesive driving force behind the plot. If "elevate the level of television programming" is to be the driving plotline - where is the example? If "Matt" and "Harriet" are the leading couple, and they've already played out the break-up phase, the reunion phase, the let's-be-professional phase, and the nostalgic phase... what's left? If Bradley Whitford's character is going to be aloof, wise-alecky and cool the whole time, he'll end up a less textured version of Josh Lyman. And if the show has set up "the writer" "the director" and "the leading lady" as brilliant, razor-sharp, and extraordinarily talented, then, where is the funny? Is it possible that Aaron Sorkin et al may have set themselves up? The slam-bang intro seemed to promise some seriously funny, envelope-pushing sketch comedy and a new era of t.v. programming. Besides the opening monologue/rant and the "re-worked' Gilbert & Sullivan, what's been clever, edgy, thought-provoking, or laugh-out-loud?… Expand
  8. JoeBob
    Oct 4, 2006
    3
    I've watched all of Sorkin's stuff; The American President, A Few Good Men, etc. , the show Sports Night and all of his West Wing material - I'm undoubtedly a fan. 'West Wing' was Sorkin at his best; but even then, it gets old fast - all of his characters - ALL OF THEM, are basically the same. All witty, quick, confident characters that are 'the best at what I've watched all of Sorkin's stuff; The American President, A Few Good Men, etc. , the show Sports Night and all of his West Wing material - I'm undoubtedly a fan. 'West Wing' was Sorkin at his best; but even then, it gets old fast - all of his characters - ALL OF THEM, are basically the same. All witty, quick, confident characters that are 'the best at what they do' - you could drop a character from 'A Few Good Men' into Sunset Strip and you'd barely notice the descrepency. Add four or five points to my score if you are not familiar with any of Sorkin's material as 'Sunset Strip' isn't a bad show if you're unawares of this type of dramedy. If you have seen some of his other stuff, well, it's hard to tolerate this show. Sorkin is a master of intelligent, sarcastic dialogue - but 'Sunset Strip' revolves around an SNL look-a-like... so when the plot forces Sorkin's hand on showing a 'funny skit' in the plot (and the plot requires the skit to be funny as they are selling the main characters as masters of writing good comedy skits) it really turns out to be something closer to a transparent pretensiousness on behalf of Sorkin and the show's characters. Basically, if you've seen the first couple of seasons of the West Wing, you've seen the best of Sorkin - this is just character and plot recycling in an awkward package.… Expand
  9. EdG
    Oct 5, 2006
    2
    I suffered through this show twice. It is terrible. What show were the critics watching??
  10. MariaK
    Oct 6, 2006
    3
    Pretentious and ridiculously self-indulgent. Enough already.
  11. JimK.
    Sep 18, 2006
    0
    Just because the Sorkin name is attached, doesn't automatically give it the stamp of brilliance. Sorkin, a devout Mamet thief, has found a milieu in a time when there are a billion other ways to spew his "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" diatribes, has chosen the least interesting, least inventive and least incidiary way to skewer the world at large. At least with the West Wing, we as a Just because the Sorkin name is attached, doesn't automatically give it the stamp of brilliance. Sorkin, a devout Mamet thief, has found a milieu in a time when there are a billion other ways to spew his "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" diatribes, has chosen the least interesting, least inventive and least incidiary way to skewer the world at large. At least with the West Wing, we as a nation were riveted by goverment, and he took that excitement and made it sexy. This show is not sexy, insightful or surprising. It is just bad and boring. Really? A plot point based on whether or not a character can get bonded? My fear is that it sounds smart, so people with think it's smart, and, thanks to Schlamme... it looks smart (the show looks amazing). I loved Sports Night and West Wing, but this just isn't worth squat.… Expand
  12. MattJ
    Sep 19, 2006
    2
    Too obvious in showing its agenda. The acting was good, but it came across too preachy.
  13. MattB
    Sep 25, 2006
    3
    Boring with a captial B. The show has a West Wing feel to it , good or bad I don't know, but I thought overall it was quite a snooze. And No it wasn't too quick or difficult to follow, it was just boring.
  14. bigk
    Sep 29, 2006
    3
    Phoney from beginning to end. The Sportsnight/West Wing dialog style just iritates the hell out of me. I didn't buy the premise at all, and by the time the pilot was done, so was I. Time to watch the last episode of The Wire on my TIVO. If only this mess was half as good as it is!
  15. annas
    Oct 11, 2006
    0
    I would have rated this show 1 or 2, but went to zero because all the hype around the Sorkin return set me up for a big disappointment. This show is pretentious --and amateurish in a way I can't quite put my finger on. Are the critics in on a big joke by raving about the show? Hve they watched a special Critic's Version? I don't get the love or this show at. all. Worst show I would have rated this show 1 or 2, but went to zero because all the hype around the Sorkin return set me up for a big disappointment. This show is pretentious --and amateurish in a way I can't quite put my finger on. Are the critics in on a big joke by raving about the show? Hve they watched a special Critic's Version? I don't get the love or this show at. all. Worst show I've seen of the new season.… Expand
  16. AMorris
    Oct 14, 2006
    2
    I was prepared to love this show. I looked forward to it more than I have to any show in a long time. By episode three, I found my attraction has turned to complete aversion. It's not that I don't 'get' the TV setting and in jokes. Being on the fringe of the business, I don't find them out of reach at all. For the most part it's that Sorkin has once again I was prepared to love this show. I looked forward to it more than I have to any show in a long time. By episode three, I found my attraction has turned to complete aversion. It's not that I don't 'get' the TV setting and in jokes. Being on the fringe of the business, I don't find them out of reach at all. For the most part it's that Sorkin has once again chosen TV as his pulpit. The sanctimonious attitude he shows towards anyone who may not share his political and moral beliefs is inexcusable. I can listen to people who disagree with me, I can appreciate other opinions, but to be incessantly pepperred with statements that imply I am stupid and ignorant for what I believe is not going to make me watch this show. It's just not good enough. Add to this some truly ridiculous conceits and the score I can give this drops even lower. Question. When was the last time Saturday Night Live was remotely intellectual, highbrow, intriguing, cutting edge, or even -funny-? I can't remember either. And yet here we are, presented with a show within a show that we are supposed to believe is all these things? I did -so- enjoy the scenes where the producers/writers/various others were discussing how the audience just didn't 'get' the skits. It was charming when Amanda Peet's character insulted the focus group, that really impressed me. Yes, Studio 60, a show based on SNL, is supposedly intellectual entertainment folks. Only smart, savvy people can understand it. Sorkin, you're such a blowhard. Your agenda is as greasy and obvious as a 16 year old pizza boy's oily face.… Expand
  17. MaryD
    Oct 16, 2006
    3
    I tried to like this show, I really tried. After 3 episodes I just couldn't take anymore. It's boring and self-important. I don't care about the characters, although I thought Matthew Perry has done a good job of acting. The Christian right is such an easy (and over-done) target. If they want to push a real envelope - why not take a shot at intolerent Muslims. You know, the I tried to like this show, I really tried. After 3 episodes I just couldn't take anymore. It's boring and self-important. I don't care about the characters, although I thought Matthew Perry has done a good job of acting. The Christian right is such an easy (and over-done) target. If they want to push a real envelope - why not take a shot at intolerent Muslims. You know, the one's calling for death to all infidels? Oh, not that brave? So much safer to mock Christians. In the end, though, I'm pulling the plug because this show is not dramatically interesting, nor funny.… Expand
  18. DMor
    Oct 17, 2006
    1
    got stale rapidly from the second episode on.
  19. benjaminn
    Oct 20, 2006
    1
    gave it three episodes, went straight downhill. The problem is it takes itself so seriously that when you couple fake drama with serious soundtrack you end up finding yourself caring about the problems these characters are dealing with. Then you realize the stupidity of what their dealing with and feel even stupider for caring at all. It is so obvious and deliberate that the dialogue gave it three episodes, went straight downhill. The problem is it takes itself so seriously that when you couple fake drama with serious soundtrack you end up finding yourself caring about the problems these characters are dealing with. Then you realize the stupidity of what their dealing with and feel even stupider for caring at all. It is so obvious and deliberate that the dialogue makes no sense when you really listen. In the second episode they are talking about some reference to italian comedy and how some woman thought it was french comedy. Oh how stupid that woman was, didn't she know the difference between comedy from italy and french comedy. doesn't everyone! thats how every piece of dialogue feels. its like these people are way to smart for there own good. and that would work in another themed show, but this is sopposed to be about a sketch comedy show. einstiens don't work in sketch comedy, chris farley, john belushi, thats what we are looking for. stupid drunk , drug addicts with real problems, not whether they are allowed to make fun of christians. it seems that every character lives and breathes this show. when in reality these people party real hard and have to deal with paying rent alcholism mental problems. i'm done, i'll take friday night lights over this any day.… Expand
  20. grahaml
    Sep 18, 2006
    0
    All the characters are unlikable. One of the worst shows I have ever had the misfortune of wasting an hour of my life on. Judd Hirsch was great and then it just tanked.
  21. PennyW
    Sep 18, 2006
    0
    The high point of the episode was when they showed the Sowden House that was previously seen in Cycle 6 of America's Next Top Model. Otherwise it was a very contrived, very boring look at a mock SNL world..
  22. BobboW
    Sep 18, 2006
    2
    Old, trite, pretentous. The professional critics are in love with the sound of their own voices. This is a show that acts as if the rise and fall of a late night comedy is the equivalent of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. It's a lot of strum and drang about nothing.
  23. LindaL
    Sep 19, 2006
    2
    Yet another episode of "Left-WIng Hypocrites Can Save the World." The show includes a "Christian" character just so she can be the recipient of scathing put-downs from the Matthew Perry character. Can't wait till Sorkin introduces a Demonic Republican character, too. Just give the show an Emmy now!
  24. Larryw
    Sep 19, 2006
    0
    boring!!!! I wasn't a big W Wing fan but at least the underlying setting and issues were of substance. Who needs an overly talky inside baseball show about people trying to save the soul of TV while making big bucks. But that's par for the course in a society where tabloid mags outsell the New Yorker by 100,000 : 1 and more people care how much Paris Hilton drinks than about the boring!!!! I wasn't a big W Wing fan but at least the underlying setting and issues were of substance. Who needs an overly talky inside baseball show about people trying to save the soul of TV while making big bucks. But that's par for the course in a society where tabloid mags outsell the New Yorker by 100,000 : 1 and more people care how much Paris Hilton drinks than about the 100,000s in Darfur that don't have enough drinking water. In other words it should be a hit as a "serirous" show, Aaargh btw I fell asleep after 20 mins, woke up turned it off and read a book… Expand
  25. WomboM
    Sep 22, 2006
    3
    Dear god, I had forgotten what a tedious blowhard Sorkin is. The sets are beautiful, tho!
  26. AnonymousMC
    Sep 28, 2006
    1
    Self important crap
  27. KellyBean
    Sep 28, 2006
    1
    This show is full of a bunch of characters who I couldn't care less to learn more about. Studio 60 is clearly geared towards entertainment industry people (probably trying to steal some of Entourage's thunder...nice try), and the reality of that is NO ONE cares what stupid things happen in these people's lives EXCEPT INDUSTRY PEOPLE who are the same ones who have given it This show is full of a bunch of characters who I couldn't care less to learn more about. Studio 60 is clearly geared towards entertainment industry people (probably trying to steal some of Entourage's thunder...nice try), and the reality of that is NO ONE cares what stupid things happen in these people's lives EXCEPT INDUSTRY PEOPLE who are the same ones who have given it such skewed and raving reviews. This show is TERRIBLE!… Expand
  28. Rob
    Oct 13, 2006
    2
    So I gave this more than a fair shot - what is it now, 4 or 5 weeks? But I'm cutting the line on this one. Never watched West Wing, but did like the American President and occassionally watched Sports Night (though when I did watch it it was ages ago and I think it went over my head). I do like the look of it and I congratulate Matthew Perry for stepping out and doing a great job So I gave this more than a fair shot - what is it now, 4 or 5 weeks? But I'm cutting the line on this one. Never watched West Wing, but did like the American President and occassionally watched Sports Night (though when I did watch it it was ages ago and I think it went over my head). I do like the look of it and I congratulate Matthew Perry for stepping out and doing a great job with a new character. If nothing else I hope this opens up a lot of doors to him. But: 1) It's a skit show - attemping to cram all the posturing and seriousness of government into a comedy show strains your credulity. 2) "Crazy Christians" - ok really, this is to Sorkin what...courage? Attacking a group who a) probably won't watch the show and b) won't really get upset (boycott? - do those even work anymore (ala Disney and the Southern Baptists)). How about courage to attack another religion in which protests result in actual violence (not saying he should but if his point is how "courageous" he is). It seems every episode is only a way for you to get to the "Christian Right" joke or issue. ("How high do my ratings need to stay up so I can go after the Right" - really that would be Peet's concern? - how about she'd be more concerned because her job might be over if she doesn't.) 3) Fast talk - the fact someone talks fast does not inherently mean what you are saying is well written. Not having watched WW I have to only conclude this is a a style of Sorkin's. If you actually pause to listen to what the characters are saying you realize the writing is quite bland, pretentious, and sometimes downright poor. 4) Out of Touch - Honestly this is the key issue this might work if Sorkin tried to actually attach his character's to real issues. This feels like someone "preaching to the choir" (an anology that I'm sure Sorkin wouldn't like) and thus undercuts the "cutting-edge" meliu that he is supposed to represent. Sadly it seems only South Park actually keeps up the ideas of being on the cutting edge and skewing everything from Jesus to Hybrid owners to Scientology. This feels like Sorkin is trying to reclaim some past glory by reveling in liberal pathos and some mystical past where people actually had to fear the religious right. That's the probelm at root - if your only issue to be "relevant" is a strawman - well you aren't the courageous/intelligent/hard-hitting/well-written show that you claim to be.… Expand
  29. MollyM
    Oct 16, 2006
    0
    Do the critics watch the same show that the rest of us do? I keep hoping I'm being too hard on the show, so I've given it several chances. But, did you see tonight's episode? Matt was talking to Martha and asked her why she was doing the article on the show, "You've covered wars, the white house.., why this show?" "What you're doing is important here, somebody Do the critics watch the same show that the rest of us do? I keep hoping I'm being too hard on the show, so I've given it several chances. But, did you see tonight's episode? Matt was talking to Martha and asked her why she was doing the article on the show, "You've covered wars, the white house.., why this show?" "What you're doing is important here, somebody needs to tell this story.." Or some crap kind of like that. What they're doing is "important"? How is that exactly? It is a comedy skit show! Who is Aaron Sorkin kidding? What an incredible sense of self-importance he must possess... This show just isn't that great, and acts like it is "all that". And that is usually a death knell for a show, but apparently all of the ignorant and easily fooled shallow folk who are watching the show are all as pretentious and self-deluding as Sorkin, because they keep watching and loving the show. That is the tragedy here, Sorkin, you are not saving the world with this show, you aren't making a statement that makes TV better, you are pandering to the very kinds of people that your show claims to be superior to. Keep falling for his pretentious illusion of a good show, Studio 60 fans, you're playing right into the marketing department's hands...… Expand
  30. NB
    Nov 6, 2006
    0
    Every time the music comes on during a commercial break I think, oh, my gosh, even the show's music is pretentious! Basically watching the show is like listening to a political rant. I even agree with some of what they are trying to shove down our throats, but, every time they force it on us as offensively as possible it makes me wonder if I need to rethink my own beliefs. Maybe I Every time the music comes on during a commercial break I think, oh, my gosh, even the show's music is pretentious! Basically watching the show is like listening to a political rant. I even agree with some of what they are trying to shove down our throats, but, every time they force it on us as offensively as possible it makes me wonder if I need to rethink my own beliefs. Maybe I shouldn't be politically aligned with pedantic preachy and inaccurate folks like the ones who write and produce this show. I have three words for you about this show... pompous, pushy, and most of all, pretentious.… Expand
  31. BenM
    Sep 26, 2006
    0
    The acting is more like reading. There is such a democratic agenda. When do a producer and writer command a room full of press? Totally unbelievable. When is doing drugs in Hollywood a big deal? Let's get this straight, every writer and producer does blow on a daily basis and everyone knows it. To make it seem like it is a big deal is a sham. Network TV is a dying dinosaur and this The acting is more like reading. There is such a democratic agenda. When do a producer and writer command a room full of press? Totally unbelievable. When is doing drugs in Hollywood a big deal? Let's get this straight, every writer and producer does blow on a daily basis and everyone knows it. To make it seem like it is a big deal is a sham. Network TV is a dying dinosaur and this show is living proof. You want to see good tv go to HBO and showtime.… Expand
  32. DickL.
    May 26, 2007
    3
    The show mysteriously reappeared on Thursday night with Busfield as star and running the strike hampered production, no Matt, no Brad. It still has the same flaws, poorly lit, muddy audio, throwaway lines, walkietalkie, never shows any talent on the show within a show, six or eight subplots that no one cares about. The Christian Right character still being portrayed as obtuse. The media The show mysteriously reappeared on Thursday night with Busfield as star and running the strike hampered production, no Matt, no Brad. It still has the same flaws, poorly lit, muddy audio, throwaway lines, walkietalkie, never shows any talent on the show within a show, six or eight subplots that no one cares about. The Christian Right character still being portrayed as obtuse. The media in general give the Muslims a pass, but this is ridiculous.… Expand
  33. Craig
    Sep 13, 2007
    0
    Not funny. Not interesting. I wanted to like it, but I couldn't.

Awards & Rankings

18
#18 Best TV Season of 2006
4
#4 Most Discussed TV Season of 2006
29
#29 Most Shared TV Season of 2006

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 33 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 33
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 33
  3. Negative: 1 out of 33
  1. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Barry Garron
    90
    There are more than a few well-made dramas this season, but "Studio 60" -- with its intelligent dialogue, ironic humor, brilliant acting and Schlamme's inspired direction -- lays claim to being the most exciting new show of the season.
    Read full review
  2. Christian Science Monitor
    Reviewed by: Gloria Goodale
    100
    Sorkin brings the same intensity and political sensibilities to the story.
    Read full review
  3. Wall Street Journal
    Reviewed by: Nancy DeWolf Smith
    60
    Here's hoping that the strong whiff of sanctimony in the pilot of "Studio 60" is blown away by fresh air in future episodes.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »