Did you know that CBS Mondays has been home to great comedies for years? I had no idea … in fact, I thought that Ray Romano made the night in the nineties. Oops.
Be that as it may, we’ve managed to work our way through the weekend, and are now beginning the primetime, weeknight television schedule, home to some of the greatest shows to have ever entered our living rooms and stunted our intellectual growth. First up is Monday night.
If you’d like to play along at home, you can see how I arrived at my choices — and pick your own — by taking a look at my CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX Monday night lineups, before jumping in below.
8:00-9:00 Chuck’s a fighter, isn’t he? He and his eponymous show have battled season after season for survival. And now, they face the ultimate challenge — will I start my week off with Chuck, or Coach or How I Met Your Mother at 8:00, followed by Everybody Loves Raymond at 8:30?
Sadly for Chuck, he’s no match for Mr. Romano, who headlined one of the greatest sitcoms in television history. I’ve talked a little bit about tier-two comedy, but Everybody Loves Raymond is tier one all the way. And it’s also no lie — I too love him.
Which means that we can either go with an oldie, or some newer programming at 8:00. And I am a big fan of How I Met Your Mother … last season was amazing. This season? Well, I certainly wouldn’t tank a show for tanking. At the same time, let’s have some honesty among us friends — is Craig T. Nelson not one of the greatest people to ever decide to entertain us? Such a simple show, such a simple premise. And yet it did romance well; it did family well; it did friendship well; it even did the transition to pro football well. I have to give it to the man … Coach is my choice to start off the night.
9:00-10:00 I was definitely a K-Ville fan. The wife and I started watching the show, and week after week we’d continue to tune in because we couldn’t decide one way or another. But as the season progressed, an appreciation for the characters and the story really started to sink in. And I love Anthony Anderson. But I think FOX didn’t give the show enough time to explain to the audience what it was. And without a solid understanding of what it meant to be….
By default, that puts Murphy Brown at the 9:00 slot. Which I have no problem with, because Candice Bergen is a giant, and she’s amazing. I absolutely love her as an actress, and she’s golden every time she decides to share something of herself with us on screen. It’s the second half of the hour that’s a tough one.
My wife and I were expecting during most of Notes from the Underbelly’s run, and while we were unsure where the show planned to go after the baby was born, we loved it and how well we could relate to the un-relatable story. But this is also where we encounter the first instance of my cheating — not being able to decide between the two, I slotted both Worst Week and Rules of Engagement here on my CBS schedule. Rules of Engagement is one of the best sitcoms on TV right now. If you’re not watching it, you should, because Patrick Warburton is hilarious.
Nevertheless, since recently purchasing the complete series on DVD, I have re-watched Worst Week at least three times through, and it doesn’t lose anything no matter how well you can anticipate what’s coming next. It’s cancellation might well have been one of the worst decisions ever made by a television network. On its strengths alone, although not ignoring the hilarity of Kyle Bornheimer (do not judge him based on Romantically Challenged), Worst Week has got to be my pick. Actually not so tough after all.
10:00-11:00 Castle’s a great show. I love Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic, and the whole gang at the precinct. It’s fun, enjoyable, and I always look forward to watching it. And were this up against most other things….
We were robbed when Kevin McKidd wasn’t given the opportunity to see us through to the end of his new show. Forget all the questions still hanging in the air — his conciliation prize is a nighttime soap? He, and Journeyman, were awesome, and we were robbed. And were it up against most other things….
But it’s not. Cancelling Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip may well have been the worst decision ever made by a network. Fans, even among the writers here at CliqueClack, are quick to point out flaws here and there, various things that disenfranchised viewers from the show. But I have no idea what those people are talking about. Aside from Men of a Certain Age, Studio 60 is the only show I’ve ever watched that never once produced a bad episode. Not one.
Pairing Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford together was a stroke of genius. Amanda Peet was phenomenal as an executive trying to keep two free-thinking TV people from spinning the show off the face of the Earth. Steven Weber was a fantastic “bad guy,” D.L. Hughley and Nathan Corddry (remember the episodes about his brother?) are both incredibly talented actors, Sarah Paulson was exactly the right amount of abrasive, and more than enough amazing, and rounding out the cast with Timothy Busfield, among many talented others, made the show perfect. The walk and talk? Fit like a glove. The rapid-fire, high-brow dialogue? Pitch perfect. Stories? Incredible. Not a thing bad about it. I honestly have no idea what people are talking about when they claim otherwise. Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was exceptional!
And that’s all there is to it. If it were up to me, I’d be watching the following lineup in perpetuity on Monday nights: Coach, Everybody Loves Raymond, Murphy Brown, Worst Week, and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. How about you? What does your dream Monday night lineup look like?
Clacked by Aryeh S.
on May 21, 2010 @ 15:07 EST5EDT
The worst decision ever was to have a religious nutjob character on Studio 60. I said it then and I’ll say it again – there was no chemistry between ANY of the to-be couples on the show AND the conflict was absolutely artificial.
I still liked the show, mainly because of the actors (Chandler, Josh Lyman as well as Nate Corddry from TDS) and it was all nicely done because Aaron Sorkin knows how to write a good TV show. But what he wrote and how he put it together simply didn’t fit. It never did. Not for a second. It still sucked that the show got cancelled because I thought that in a second season the show would’ve been better. But on the other hand it should’ve been canceled after six episodes. It was totally beyond me how it got a full season.
As per usual, cannot disagree with Sebastian more. Not being from the States, i know that you might find this hard to believe, but there are a lot of people in America like Hayes. And nutjob is overstating it a bit, no?
I more politely disagree on the chemistry point. Matt and Hayes were certainly were more forced, but I liked Jordan and Danny. And Lucy and Tom??
More to the point, is Sorkin has always excelled at writing friendships. On the West Wing, on SportsNight and here. If S60 had a fatal flaw, it was that it took itself too seriously.
And it got a full season pick up very, very early on, and if it was paid for, It was paid for.
Yes sure Ivey it’s not that I disagree with the story or that it is not believable. Quite the contrary. It’s the other way around. I absolutely fully believed the storyline. I think Lorne Michaels has to deal with these (self) censorship problems when it comes to catholics and religion in general on a daily basis. I mean the US of A has been founded by people who left Europe because they couldn’t follow their religious beliefs. Shows like “Big Love” at the moment can only exist in the US and especially the episode in Parump/Nevada of Studio 60 was just golden. I loved it. John Goodman basically plays this character now on “Treme”. To me the show was an extension of “The West Wing”, especially because of Bradley Whitford, the problem was that there was no clear lead (no president) and they all kinda worked together but then didn’t. That sense of urgency was there all the time but without the idea of a country with nuclear weapons in the background it all felt so off to me. I mean in the end it was just a stupid saturday night comedy show, right? What’s the big deal?
In the end, the religion aspect was about two things: values and money. The religious groups on the show didn’t like certain things on the air and the stations who would not air the show if certain jokes/skits were put on simply wouldn’t do it because they would lose money. That’s simply something I don’t like. I don’t like watching that. I don’t care about that. There’s no sense of empathy with the people who run the show because in the end they’re just stupid jokes and while a discussion about censorship is all good in its own right I don’t really see the need to follow the plight of these guys who make millions running a comedy show fight over what religious jokes get on the air. If you boil it all down: the US of A has 300 million citizens of which most likely 90% have a religion. They want to be entertained. Stop fighting your stupid little censorship fight in the writers’ room of a comedy show.
It felt that Matt just did it all to piss people off. It felt as if he only did it to to stand in his own way. As if he thought he just had to say it. I know the irony here because that’s most likely the perfect description of me. But again – I don’t want to see idiotic behavior on a TV show.
And sorry but I didn’t really think Jordan and Danny had that much chemistry. I know it sounds shallow but Amanda Peet just didn’t strike me as the motherly type. She and Sarah Paulson are really thin and overall not “warm” at all. I simply didn’t get the romance there. I had less trouble with J’Lo and Clooney in “Out of Sight”… that kind of business environment beautiful people romance just isn’t for me. And the third romance on the show between Nate Corddry and the Girl from “The Office (UK)” wasn’t working for me either. Which is strange because all that most likely would’ve worked perfectly for me on “The West Wing” because, again, I can understand all that cramped “I know, we can’t” in the White House but on a friggin Comedy Show I just don’t get it.
So yes you are absolutely right. It took itself too seriously, that’s a brilliant observation. There was no sense of fun. All these people on the show always behaved as if lives were on the line (like, say, on The West Wing) and that just wasn’t the case. Sorkins solution was to bring in abortion clinics to underline that stance but if you ask me it would’ve helped more if all these people would’ve been allowed to laugh. You are right that Sorkin wrote great friendships but I think these friendships can’t always come from situations where people simply can’t talk to each other or are prevented from it because society forbids them to get close (or the circumstances).
I guess the setting was just wrong. I mean look at us, two years later we still wonder why it all failed because we liked it. It just didn’t work and I hated myself for not liking it. I didn’t like any of the couples, I didn’t like the stories but it was all done so well. It was like watching great people fail on a weekly basis and it just sucked.
“Journeyman” on the other hand worked all the way through and didn’t get renewed. Screw you NBC :-)
*POST AUTHOR*
That’s part of what I’m talking about. People saw Harriet’s character as polarizing because of the Christianity angle, but I didn’t get that vibe. It was a trait, and something that meant a significant amount in her life, but overtaking who she was and becoming a doctrine that the show preached? I never felt it.
I also have to disagree about the chemistry — like on anything else, you had to take each person for who they were and where they’d arrived in life. Matt and Harriet were trying to rebuild what they had, so they were awkward despite their history, and also comfortable despite their differences. Jordan and Danny were two life-long singles trying to come to terms with the idea that they could find someone in life. And Tom and Lucy were really cute … I totally disagree there as well.
Ivey and I do disagree over whether or not the show took on a tone that America couldn’t (or didn’t want to) relate to, but otherwise we’re on the same page.
But I don’t know that I’d say it took itself too seriously. We may think TV’s a cutesy affair from here, but if it’s your show, job, and life, wouldn’t it mean the world to you? Think about your own professions. Someone else might say, “What’s the big deal? It’s just X?!?” But if you do it because you love it, and it is who you are? Why would there have to be a nuclear aspect to it to make it important?
Damn. Save Murphy Brown, nearly every show you’ve listed, and most of the alternate possibilities, are so odious that, should I be trapped in a room with a television displaying one of them, I would be forced to defenestrate it or beat it to death with a stick to preserve my own sanity. And I watched every episode of several of those shows.
*POST AUTHOR*
Wow. Just wow.