WHY IS "STUDIO 60" DOING POORLY? I HAVE A THEORY!

As many people already know, Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip isn't doing as well as many "experts" predicted. In fact, the show has seen its ratings decline in each of its first three weeks on the air, and is set to be replaced (for one week at least) by NBC's high school football drama Friday Night Lights. Many television journalists have given their proverbial "two cents" as to why this has happened. Some have said the show is "too smart", while others say it's "too inside", and even others have pointed to the show's lack of funny material in covering such a supposedly famous sketch comedy show.

Well, in making my case for the demise of Studio 60... I'd like to address three issues I have with the program.

#1: DON'T DISCUSS BLOATED "HOLLYWOOD SALARIES" WITH MIDDLE AMERICA!
Okay, to begin with, there's yet to be an episode of Studio 60 where I haven't cringed (sometimes more than once) at the subject of money. Some choice examples include:
- A booth director who, while contemplating a tough moral decision, is reminded that his two kids are in "private school" and need his employment to continue their pampered education. Now let's keep in mind that just 10% of American kids go to private school. So just how are parents of "lowly" public school children supposed to react here? I know how the public-educated kid inside of me reacted: "Fuck 'em!" The worst part is that it didn't even need to be said. A simple, "Hey you have two kids to take care of," would have been enough for most people to sympathize with the character's decision to back down.

- A mention of Studio 60 head writers Ricky & Ron who are described as talentless "hacks", and who Matt and Danny wish to fire upon taking on the show. The reply from the Network President? "You can't fire them, they make $30,000 an episode." Again, how is the average teacher, policeman, or grocery store employee supposed to react to this? These two guys are "bad at their job", yet still make more in a week than many Americans do in a year? Again, it didn't need to be said. A simple, "They have a contract," or, "It's too expensive" would suffice. Hey Sorkin, the audience isn't filled with millionaire cokeheads wallowing in seven-figure TV deals... get it?

- A mention of Harriet's $18,000/episode salary and how it equals the yearly take-home of factory workers in some midwestern city who are about to be the butt of a Studio 60 joke. Again, why does money have to be mentioned here? And yes, 20 episodes times $18,000 is $360,000/year... minus 10 percent agent fees.

- The mention of so-called "alpha-comsumers" and how they're richer, smarter, and worth FIVE TIMES AS MUCH to Madison Avenue as the lowly regular television viewer. Hmmm... how do you think this plays with the 9 to 5 crowd?

(UPDATE: In tonight's show, one of the lower-level (and 27 year-old) writers brags about being able to buy his father's Columbus, Ohio home, "four times over and turn it into my ping-pong room." And all because his father has the nerve to occasionally ask him, "Do you need any money?" Can you fucking believe the "old man's" nerve? By the way, with a median home price of $190,000... how does a roughly $3,000/week staff writer amass almost $800,000?)

#2: DON'T SHOW ANY SKETCHES IF YOU WANT TO IMPLY THE "COMEDIC GENIUS" OF MATT ALBIE!
With this one, we'll politely ignore the whole former-sketch-writer-turned-Writers-Guild-award-winner-then-coming-
back-to-sketch-comedy thing. Has any writer ever done this by the way? At any rate, the character of Matt Albie has been put up on a pedestal within the show as quite possibly "The Greatest Sketch Comedy Writer Ever" by the characters that surround him. So with that in mind, I have one bit of advice: Never show more than a snippet of a sketch to your audience at home.

"Why," you ask? Well in short, Saturday Night Live has ALL WEEK to create nothing but comedy, and much of the time... they fail. So why would a one-hour drama have the balls to think they can write an hour a week of "regular dialog" and then still be able to knock-out sketches of the level they've set for Matt Albie? It beats me. It's impossible... so don't try.

But alas, week after week we're shown the better part of sketches that, in a word, suck. So why do this? Why not simply have actors walking backstage and hearing people say, "Wow! That was unbelievable!" Greek Theater used to rely on the audience's imagination to "create" elements which could not physically be displayed. It's why "Jaws" worked... it's why "Maris" worked on Frasier, it's why (insert third example) worked. Why would Sorkin even attempt such a display of "comedic genius" on such a regular basis? It makes no sense.

#3: WHY IS THERE NO FIGHTING/TENSION BETWEEN CAST MEMBERS/WRITERS?
Anyone who's read Al Franken's biography of SNL knows that there was much tension and scandal behind the scenes at Saturday Night Live. Having worked at another (albeit lesser-known) sketch show "Mad TV", I can attest that there is indeed such friction between both writers & actors on a constant basis. After all, it's a dogfight on a weekly basis to get that coveted "air time". However, Studio 60 seems to be a virtual utopian work environment.

Instead Sorkin tries to create drama out of the literal "ticking clock" on the Executive Producers wall. You know, the one that counts down the hours, minutes, and seconds until their weekly live show. You expect to hear a character shriek, "Oh my God, what if 'Senor Rubberbones' isn't ready by 11:30? The world will explode!" Not quite the life and death stakes Sorkin was used to writing for when the White House was his backdrop.

IN CONCLUSION...
Studio 60 violates the "golden rule" of television in my mind. Don't show the audience characters they don't like, and can't relate to. It's as if Aaron Sorkin hasn't met any people outside his gated community for several years, and forgot that it's these people who actually watch television.

I hear the super-rich just love this show. It's been reported that Studio 60 is the highest rated show in households that make $100,000 or more per year. Does that mean he can multiply his low ratings by five?