|
Finished watching the last few seasons for the first time a couple of days ago. I enjoyed it becoming a different show for a while, but it was a good place to end it. Got a bit tired of it in a way I never seem to do with the earlier Sorkin & Lowe seasons. Donna & Josh and CJ & Danny did nothing for me, and I wanted Vinick to win. Santos is going to make a terrible president (and Josh a bad chief of staff. Leo picked CJ for a reason).
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
Was there ever any talk of doing an 8th season covering the Santos Presidency?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Starsnostars posted:Was there ever any talk of doing an 8th season covering the Santos Presidency? No they were all done when John Spencer died. They limped across the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
The show was also getting terrible ratings and was really only kept alive because it was an Emmy factory and had the wealthiest viewer demographics of any show on TV. In the last season it was getting beat badly by Commander in Chief, the ABC show where Geena Davis was President.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
brylcreem posted:Why do you hate Mrs. Landingham? Thanks! I don't, I just can't stand to think about her too much. "18th and Potomac" is a gut punch. DominoDancing posted:Kate never really worked for me either. Probably because I associate the character with pretty much the worst episode of the show (90 Miles Away). I also never really found her relationship with Will all that compelling. Actually that's especially weird, because this show usually had a real knack for finding actors that have great chemistry together, as you already pointed out. Yeah, I was gonna mention that "90 Miles Away" went a long way to souring me on her. And I'd agree that, despite Joshua Malina and Mary McCormack trying their hardest, it just wasn't there for them. James R posted:Another highlight from that season for me is the episode with Judge Ashland, it's just so on the money. Yeah, I actually really liked the whole Shutdown arc, starting with Ashland's health and ending with the walk to the Hill. The downside is it was dropped into the middle of a bad season which just highlighted how bad the episodes around it were. BaconPigbutt posted:Great write up. I can help myself and must be near the 10th time I see the whole series. I do agree with your point on the Bartlet episodes on season 7, one exception tought is the ellie`s wedding one. This one episode shows again the president strong and being able to work without to many health concerns. What I do hate in this episode, is how easely is Santos willing to throw Josh to the sharks when pressured by the party elders. For a while after that I really cheered for Vinick. Yeah, that episode is golden. Ellie was always my favourite of the Bartlet daughters and I'm not ashamed to admit it got me a little misty-eyed. I agree about the Santos-Josh stuff too. Put me more in the Vinick camp too. A major downside of the post-Sorkin seasons was a lack of loyality amongst the characters to create drama. I never bought how much poo poo Josh took for Tom Skerrit switching parties in season 5 either. sassassin posted:(and Josh a bad chief of staff. Leo picked CJ for a reason). No way, man! Sam and Donna will level him out. DarkCrawler posted:Sam has a head-start, but Charlie will probably be the youngest president ever. 16 years of back-to-back Sam then Charlie. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Babish was probably my favourite character on the show, but that might just be because Oliver Platt is completely awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Leo picked CJ for a reason. The reason was that the writers were about to send Josh off to run Santos' campaign, not because CJ would be a good CoS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Big West Wing write-up I just have to correct you on a couple of points. Sorkin left the show because he got caught doing/may have been caught in possession of cocaine. He never intended to leave but this, combined with conflicts with NBC brass, led to him leaving/being forced out. I'm really interested if The Shutdown story really is a decent plot. At the time, it felt like the show (rightly) had no direction following Sorkin's departure and the writers just starting throwing recent events into the show. It's obviously meant to ape the 1995 government shut down during Clinton's presidency but there wasn't any build up and we're introduced to the new Speaker only a couple of episodes prior to the actual shutdown. This same "pulled from recent history" also explains several big points in early Season 5 (mideast peace). Season 5 also had weird one-offs like where they "fix" social security in a single episode. It's so very un-West Wing to have a massive issue get easily resolved in the space of an hour. But I can see the writers still struggling to do something and just revert to more conventional TV thinking. Also, they didn't write out Sam. Rob Lowe just hates commitments longer than about 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Season 5 also had weird one-offs like where they "fix" social security in a single episode. It's so very un-West Wing to have a massive issue get easily resolved in the space of an hour. But I can see the writers still struggling to do something and just revert to more conventional TV thinking. I've only seen this episode once or twice, but I'm pretty sure that they don't fix anything. The whole thing blows up in Toby's face and it becomes an object lesson in why Democrats and Republicans hate each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I've only seen this episode once or twice, but I'm pretty sure that they don't fix anything. The whole thing blows up in Toby's face and it becomes an object lesson in why Democrats and Republicans hate each other. The whole thing blows up in Toby's face but he salvages the fix by removing White House participation/involvement. The two senators/congressmen he works with continue with it and Barlett takes solace knowing his staff had started the whole shebang.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:The whole thing blows up in Toby's face but he salvages the fix by removing White House participation/involvement. The two senators/congressmen he works with continue with it and Barlett takes solace knowing his staff had started the whole shebang. Yeah, but it turns into another instance where there's no policy continuity between seasons. They "fix" Social Security but then in the campaign later, Social Security is talked about like it isn't fixed. In Season 1, they stack the FEC with campaign finance reformers, and then during the Season 3/4 election, campaign finance isn't reformed. I think there are a couple of other instances but those are the big two off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I just have to correct you on a couple of points. Fair enough. I knew about the conflict with NBC and the coke possession thing, but I assumed it happened during the writing of season 4. Either way the end of season 4 is a hell of a spot to leave a new creative team in. Thwomp posted:I'm really interested if The Shutdown story really is a decent plot. At the time, it felt like the show (rightly) had no direction following Sorkin's departure and the writers just starting throwing recent events into the show. It's obviously meant to ape the 1995 government shut down during Clinton's presidency but there wasn't any build up and we're introduced to the new Speaker only a couple of episodes prior to the actual shutdown. This same "pulled from recent history" also explains several big points in early Season 5 (mideast peace). I thought this arc did have some proper build up, mostly in the form of the new Speaker, Josh being side-lined and the ineffectiveness of Bartlet prior to that. To me it was the only story in season five that had tension, good character beats and--"ripped from the headlines" or not--new and interesting territory. Thwomp posted:Season 5 also had weird one-offs like where they "fix" social security in a single episode. It's so very un-West Wing to have a massive issue get easily resolved in the space of an hour. But I can see the writers still struggling to do something and just revert to more conventional TV thinking. Yeah, that was a weird episode. I liked the idea of it, but it never really hangs together well. First, they do that bumbling antagonism lack of loyalty thing that I think is all over the latter seasons and doesn't make sense. Josh putzing around and accidentally screwing over Toby doesn't really work for me. Also the ending ties it up too cutely. Thwomp posted:Also, they didn't write out Sam. Rob Lowe just hates commitments longer than about 3 years. Well, they did write him out. I know Lowe wanted to leave the show, which made them have to write him out. I just think it's a marker for where the show got depressing and humorless. LesterGroans fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jul 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
I thought Bartlett mentioned later on about how he "fixed social security but nobody else will know" while listing other achievements. Maybe I'm remembering something else. Oh yeah, remember that plot point about US troops going into Israel to secure internationally recognized historical/religious sites and help establish a two-state solution? I like how that was never mentioned again after the Santos storyline started to pick up the pace. Edit:VVVVVV You may be right since it's been forever since I've seen Seasons 5 and 6. I also totally forgot about the whole Khaz conflict. There's another one that lasted just a few episodes for what was described as a super dangerous conflict. Thwomp fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jul 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Oh yeah, remember that plot point about US troops going into Israel to secure internationally recognized historical/religious sites and help establish a two-state solution? I think, although I may be wrong, they mention having to pull troops from there to help with Kazakhstan. But I may be wrong and they were talking about pulling from somewhere else. You'd think that would have at least been mentioned by the Vinick campaign, or come up again when Chairman Farad is killed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I thought this arc did have some proper build up, mostly in the form of the new Speaker, Josh being side-lined and the ineffectiveness of Bartlet prior to that. To me it was the only story in season five that had tension, good character beats and--"ripped from the headlines" I thought it all made perfect sense. Walken was speaker, but he had to resign to become president. The house picks some wingnut who the White House can't work with, and it happens that one of the first things he does is the budget. In fact, they talk about Haffley in Episode 1, where Josh says even the Republicans think he's a fascist. Shutdown was 8 episodes later, certainly not a "sprung out of nowhere" character. About the most criticism you could levy is that we never heard of Haffley before Season 5, but we never heard about anybody before or after they played their part in that week's storyline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The show was also getting terrible ratings and was really only kept alive because it was an Emmy factory and had the wealthiest viewer demographics of any show on TV. In the last season it was getting beat badly by Commander in Chief, the ABC show where Geena Davis was President. What, seriously? I went and watched a bunch of "best of" clips of that, once, and it seemed so throughly mediocre. Wasn't the principal crisis of one season just a rip of the West Wing submarine episode? FISHMANPET posted:About the most criticism you could levy is that we never heard of Haffley before Season 5, but we never heard about anybody before or after they played their part in that week's storyline. They had a little pool of miscellaneous policy-makers who were sometimes heard of but almost never seen. I think Stackhouse comes up as an arbitrary name in the very first episode, and then it's like three seasons until he does a filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Commander in Chief had an interesting premise and a strong cast but the writing was a mess because they had repeated staff turnover. I think it's still on Netflix and it's worth a watch if you want something quick to breeze through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Oh man, Ninety Miles Away, I had forgotten about that. What an awful little episode that was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I just have to correct you on a couple of points. What ever the polite way of saying I dont think you know what you're talking about is- I'm saying that. Rob Lowe left because he signed onto the show as the headline star for half his rate. By the third year, everyone in the cast had renegotiated to more than his salary and the network stonewalled any discussion of a salary increase. It was simply business. Although Sam Seaborn is the role he was born to play and he would have liked to have continued, he could not continue to undercut his rate when the West Wing was such an unadulterated hit. Martin Sheen was making more than a million per episode by the second season. Aaron Sorkin was already in and out of rehab before he left the show. The actual reasons as to his leaving are still unpublished.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
diospadre posted:The reason was that the writers were about to send Josh off to run Santos' campaign, not because CJ would be a good CoS. As massively underqualifed as CJ was, Josh had more mental breakdowns than actual successes over the course of the show. Should've given Charlie the job. edit: Also yes, Ellie is indisputably the best Bartlet daughter. sassassin fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Jul 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Great write-up. I still think Season 7 is on par with season 1-3, and that stand-alone, it's incredibly good television. I mean, with a few changes that could easily have been the start of a new show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Babish was probably my favourite character on the show, but that might just be because Oliver Platt is completely awesome. One of my favourite scenes in television, which is Sorkin firing on all cylinders, is the introduction of Babbish where he has the tape recorder that he can't stop from taping. He makes a watergate joke, then Bartlett walks in and says "I want to know if I have conspired to perpetrate a fraud on the American people" or something and Babbish gets a gavel and smashes the tape recorder. Completely awesome. edit: look, just watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf8Vl0ORBaE edit: also, the whole cast getting raises thing is one of the reasons why people were not in many episodes in the last season - they needed to come up with ways to keep the number of stars per episode down to save money. algebra testes fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jul 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
It wasn't just any gavel, it was his big hammer, given to his father's father by Justice Louis Brandeis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
We lit-er-al-ly watched that episode tonight. My wife is on her first viewing of the series, and we're 2 episodes away from Two Cathedrals, which will determine whether or not I'm willing to have children with her. Dislike it, I dare you, sweetie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:We lit-er-al-ly watched that episode tonight. My wife is on her first viewing of the series, and we're 2 episodes away from Two Cathedrals, which will determine whether or not I'm willing to have children with her. Dislike it, I dare you, sweetie. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure it's not possible to dislike Two Cathedrals. I've rewatched the episode today (third time I've seen it), and everytime Brothers In Arms starts playing after Bartlett had his head-talk to Miss Landingham, my hearts start racing. It's just THAT good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
DominoDancing posted:Don't worry, I'm pretty sure it's not possible to dislike Two Cathedrals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Stuff about Babish busting a tape recorder. Maybe I'm just thick and missed a running joke but this scene has been brought up drat near every page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
CanOfMDAmp posted:Maybe I'm just thick and missed a running joke but this scene has been brought up drat near every page. It's a funny joke and the timing and delivery are basically perfect. That gag belongs in a physical comedy textbook. withak fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jul 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:We lit-er-al-ly watched that episode tonight. My wife is on her first viewing of the series, and we're 2 episodes away from Two Cathedrals, which will determine whether or not I'm willing to have children with her. Dislike it, I dare you, sweetie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
withak posted:It's a funny joke and the timing and delivery are basically perfect. That gag belongs in a physical comedy textbook. I couldn't figure out why it was so funny until I realized that during the pre-credits sequence Babish mentions that the record button is stuck and it won't stop recording everything. Then it made sense, and the scene where he smashes it just became that much funnier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I couldn't figure out why it was so funny until I realized that during the pre-credits sequence Babish mentions that the record button is stuck and it won't stop recording everything. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I don't understand how you watch the smashing scene without seeing the cold open. Youtube!!! Mr. Lyman, don't you have a message board to troll?  (And the smashing scene is also in the cold opening--it's just that I had never paid attention to any of the stuff that happens before Bartlet and Leo enter the room.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Mr. Lyman, don't you have a message board to troll? TWOP sucks so so much, but that really is when two trolls meet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Rewatching A Proportional Response, at one point Mandy is standing outside Josh's door and he asks her sardonically, "Why are you here?" In my mind it sort of became an existential and meta question, as if he were asking her character on behalf of the viewers. In all honesty, I actually don't hate Mandy, but the universal negative response to her presence fascinates and amuses me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Rewatching A Proportional Response, at one point Mandy is standing outside Josh's door and he asks her sardonically, "Why are you here?" In my mind it sort of became an existential and meta question, as if he were asking her character on behalf of the viewers. She is a weird anomaly. I mean, she's sort of a trial run for Amy Gardner, but it's just a horrible combination of an actress and material completely not flowing. Like, she's just kind of a pointless character who they introduced...and then did nothing with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Like, she's just kind of a pointless character who they introduced...and then did nothing with. Like Deanna Troi on Star Trek?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
I just finished watching all the seasons again yesterday, and I`m feeling the urge to watch it again. I think I have problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
What I am consistently amazed by is the show's ability to teach and shape. Not necessary teach in the statistics and quotable facts sense, but I think it absolutely shapes our opinions and demonstrates why we should support A because of B. There are so many moments on the show that you could just show to someone who doesn't understand something, and oh, they get it. Off the top of my head, The West Wing does a good job explaining positions for: - the census - the Equal Right's Amendment - bailing out foreign countries / foreign aid And others. That always impressed me. Tonight: Two Cathedrals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
That reminds me. I wish the show spent a little more time on "English as the official language" since it basically came down to them saying it's bad and that was it. The flag burning thing was handled great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:What I am consistently amazed by is the show's ability to teach and shape. Not necessary teach in the statistics and quotable facts sense, but I think it absolutely shapes our opinions and demonstrates why we should support A because of B. There are so many moments on the show that you could just show to someone who doesn't understand something, and oh, they get it. I always remember this quote from Leo: quote:Oh, then you are just as stupid as these guys who think capital punishment is going to be a deterrent for drug kingpins. As if drug kingpins didn't live their day to day lives under the possibility of execution, and their executions are a lot less dainty than ours and tend to take place without the bother and expense of due process. quote:Tonight: Two Cathedrals. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 00:21
|
|