The blog for Mets fans
who like to read

ABOUT US

Jason Fry and Greg Prince
Faith and Fear in Flushing made its debut on Feb. 16, 2005, the brainchild of two longtime friends and lifelong Met fans.

Greg Prince discovered the Mets when he was 6, during the magical summer of 1969. He is a Long Island-based writer, editor and communications consultant. Contact him here.

Jason Fry is a Brooklyn writer whose first memories include his mom leaping up and down cheering for Rusty Staub. Check out his other writing here.

Got something to say? Leave a comment, or email us at faithandfear@gmail.com.

Need our RSS feed? It's here.

Visit our Facebook page, or drop by the personal pages for Greg and Jason.

Or follow us on Twitter: Here's Greg, and here's Jason.

Studio 60 Here I Come

Rain, rain wouldn’t go away. Game postponed. They play tomorrow night. Glavine, better rested versus a better rested Weaver or, for all we know, a three-day Carpenter. Maybe La Russa, that genius, will pitch Spiezio.

Got a presser on SNY right now. St. Louis writers say “we” a lot and refer to Cardinal players by first name. One just asked about “Yadier,” as if the questioner were Jose or Bengie.

About these press conferences, here are the questions, generally:

“Were you thinking something I might be thinking when you accomplished that thing on the field?”

“Do you believe what just happened will completely alter the series let alone the course of the Western world?”

“Can you keep from rolling your eyes while I ask something immensely irrelevant?”

Snigh still supposed to have Post Season Live on later. Tim Teufel looks like me in every science class I ever took. Please don’t call on me. Please don’t call on me.

In the meantime, Josh…I mean Danny looks to save the world…I mean a TV show at 10 o’clock tonight on The West Wing…I mean Studio 60.

14 comments to Studio 60 Here I Come

  • Anonymous

    Studio 60 rules! (Not quite as much as the West Wing, but anyway…)
    That was the added reason I was hoping for a rainout. As read one sign I saw on TV at Shea: “Glavine and Maine then Pray for Rain.”
    Or maybe just… Glavine, then pray for torrential, wrath of God style downpours that last for days (maybe, like, five) on end!

  • Anonymous

    I had been watching Weeds on Monday nights, but it has become unwatchable recently.
    What makes Studio 60 so good?

  • Anonymous

    Weeds is pretty good too… but I think Studio 60's better, at least so far. What makes it good is the same thing that makes all of Aaron Sorkin's stuff good — idiosyncratic, believable characters, snap-cracklingly hilarious dialogue, a stunningly intricately and detailed society of carefully drawn interlocking personalities that makes you feel like you're there, and most of all an open-hearted, endlessly hopeful love of life and its endless possibilities. He does kind of keep making the same show/movie over and over, but that's OK with me as long as it's always awesome. If you liked Sports Night, The West Wing, The American President or A Few Good Men you'll probably like this show too.

  • Anonymous

    I enjoy the show immensely, but alot of the stuff you wrote which I think makes it good, makes it unwatchable from some sections of the country. (Read that however you want).

  • Anonymous

    How can any of that stuff make it unwatchable? I can't picture anyone from say, St. Louis (to choose a random example) would say, “I can't watch that show, the characters are too interesting and believable, and the tone is too openhearted.” I'd imagine if you don't like it you don't like it because it's speechy and moralistic and self-involved and kind of repetetive. All that stuff is true, but I can look past it. Show me art without flaws and I'll show you art that's not trying hard enough!

  • Anonymous

    Man, I like this show, but I wish they'd get off Christianity a little. There's this whole thing about the Sarah Paulson character, like, “OMIGOD SHE'S A CHRISTIAN AND YET SHE STARS IN AN EDGY COMEDY SHOW HOW CAN SHE LIVE WITH HERSELF ISN'T SHE GOING TO HELL???”
    Really, who cares? There's a zillion Christians out there. Believing in God doesn't mean you're never allowed to mock other people who believe in God too.

  • Anonymous

    There's a lot that doesn't quite fit with reality. The network executive's past life as tabloid fodder. This business with the Vanity Fair reporter (would two cast members really be war-gaming a response when they go live in an hour?). That everybody cares that deeply that two ex-writers/producers from a show that's been on for 20 years are coming back. And yeah, the Harriet as some sort of Amy Grant paragon.
    That said, most of the dialogue is crisp, the staging is generally wonderful and the acting has been mostly first-rate. Nobody's better than Steven Weber as the multidimensional prick executive (unless you count Ed Asner's scene-stealing cameo). Even Amanda Peet is growing on me slightly. It's such a weird world they've created. I have a hard time imagining this thing will last more than one season (if that), but as long as it's around, I'm in. Heck, last Friday night I found myself worrying that I hadn't taped it. I don't mean Studio 60 the drama, I mean Studio 60 the fictional show.

  • Anonymous

    ok, i'll just say it. i finally had the chance to watch it last night, and as much of a fan i was of west wing — and i was a big one — based on the microsample that was last night's show, i'm extremely unimpressed with studio 60.
    i found the characters uninteresting, the dialogue arch and unrealistic and way too pleased with itself. none of it had the sense of felt life, none of it ever transported me beyond the notion that these were actors acting.
    ed asner WAS wonderful, but all he did was show the gap between a lightly sketched character which the actor inhabits and fleshes out, and the rest of the characters, who were overdrawn and painfully self-absorbed. the episode's structural conceit of the magazine writer assembling a story about the cast and crew was old when m*a*s*h would do it 30 years ago. and if i was supposed to find the bit players more charming than the main actors, it didn't take.
    earnestness for its own sake isn't just boring. it can get irritating.
    it'll be a while before i tune in again. if it's still on.

  • Anonymous

    Greg, I concur with every part of your assessment…yet I can't stop watching. Maybe it's because I've worked for media and entertainment companies for so long it feels good watching a show that captures at least a little bit of what it can be like behind the scenes. And Ed Asner was top notch; last week I kept hoping he would pop up since they made the Mary Tyler Moore references.
    And if it lasts more than one season, I'll be stunned.

  • Anonymous

    I have to say, last night's episode was, for me, the weakest one yet. I hope they focus more on the show itself and less on the “Danny and Matt Save the World with Irreverent Comedy” and “Despite Their True Love, Matt and Harriet Cannot Be Together Because They Have Slightly Different Religious Beliefs” stuff. It's not “will they or won't they” it's more like “why the heck don't they?” The first episode of this show was a stunning masterpiece, but it's stumbled a little bit out of the gate, and i find myself agreeing with dmg. Still, I have high hopes it can recover. It's got loads of potential.
    Does anybody else REALLY WANT TO WATCH the evil British dude's humiliation show?

  • Anonymous

    I love the process stuff, like watching the technical rehearsal. I find the relationship stuff a strain. So you used to be together and now you're not but you have to work together again. How, uh, interesting.
    If they're going to sell “The Big Three,” as they were referred to in the pilot, as this talented triumvirate, I'm going to have to see some proof. Same for this spectacularly rebounding show. The sketches within the show, perhaps so as not to distract us from the business at hand, are as lame as anyting on SNL or Mad TV. That's fine, that's realistic. But stop telling us how amazing it is/they are.
    You can tell how much I like the show by how much I pick it apart.
    And no, no network would pass on a guaranteed smash, no matter how vulgar. Whether it's such a guaranteed hit, once again, save your suspension of disbelief for a rotation that includes Maine, Trachsel and Perez.

  • Anonymous

    I totally agree with your analysis… the show within the show is just plain awful! The only funny bit so far was the “Pimp my Trike” thing from the montage last week. How can you have D.L. Hughley on your show and make him so painfully unfunny? The subtext is supposed to be: not only is this show brilliant and smart and challenging, but it appeals to a vast mainstream audience. I haven't seen any evidence that it is or does any of those things.
    But I love the process stuff too. I love the big clock and the look of perpetual deadline-terror on Matt's face. It's great hearing them bandy jokes around and try to figure out what works. In the first episode, when they realized they needed to make their entrance with a huge orchestrated production number and began brainstorming lyrics, my heart actually started to beat faster. Of course, then when they actually perform it it turns out to be a cheesy self-referential Gilbert and Sullivan parody. Oops. And yeah — I feel like Sorkin's trying to replicate the Dana/Casey relationship which worked so brilliantly as the heart of Sports Night. But I ain't buying it the second time around.
    Speaking of Oliver Perez, he's a good analogy. Sizzle and pop to spare, moments of transcendent glory, followed by four consecutive walks and then an irritatingly self-satisfied leap over the foul line. Still, I have high hopes for both the pitcher and the program, due to my boundless respect for anyone named Aaron Sorkin or Omar Minaya.

  • Anonymous

    I'm beginning to think 13 weeks is an outsized goal.