|
Hey Josh and Hrishi! I know you guys don't read this thread, but on the off-chance you do, can you put a moratorium on "So how did you get the part" questions? Every single answer is literally exactly the same. "I knew/knew of Aaron from Sports Night/An American President/A Few Good Men and then I begged my agent to get me an audition, Aaron was there/Aaron wasn't there, and then I thought I didn't get the part, but then when I was at <INSERT LOS ANGELES LOCATION HERE> I got the call!" Good episodes otherwise though. Taking a Schiff had me giggling on the bus this morning.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
I wish they would focus more on recapping the episode and less behind the scenes stuff. I kinda hated the first part with Tommy, it was all behind the scenes stuff and boring stuff at that. I kept yelling at them "Talk about the episode!" The second part was much better, the interview with the guy who played Ron Butterfield was excellent because he was able to tie his story into discussion of the actual episode. And Brad/Josh have a great dynamic so it's fun to hear them talk about whatever. ninjahedgehog posted:Hey Josh and Hrishi! I know you guys don't read this thread, but on the off-chance you do, can you put a moratorium on "So how did you get the part" questions? Every single answer is literally exactly the same. "I knew/knew of Aaron from Sports Night/An American President/A Few Good Men and then I begged my agent to get me an audition, Aaron was there/Aaron wasn't there, and then I thought I didn't get the part, but then when I was at <INSERT LOS ANGELES LOCATION HERE> I got the call!" I would try Tweeting this at them for any shot at a response. I also agree, those stories are boring as poo poo, we already know the ending.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I wish they would focus more on recapping the episode and less behind the scenes stuff. quote:And Brad/Josh have a great dynamic so it's fun to hear them talk about whatever. We've seen the episodes (hundreds of times), I'm all for talking about stuff that's not on the screen when they get the chance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Hey Josh and Hrishi! I know you guys don't read this thread, but on the off-chance you do, can you put a moratorium on "So how did you get the part" questions? Every single answer is literally exactly the same. "I knew/knew of Aaron from Sports Night/An American President/A Few Good Men and then I begged my agent to get me an audition, Aaron was there/Aaron wasn't there, and then I thought I didn't get the part, but then when I was at <INSERT LOS ANGELES LOCATION HERE> I got the call!" Those are some of my favorite parts. I know what happens in the episode of the show. I've seen it. But hearing Whitford talk about auditioning with Moira Kelly, and how he hates chemistry tests, and how he almost got the Sam part, and how Aaron would have just written Sam differently, and imagining that show...that's the stuff, man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
 This I can't unsee now Schlamme pointed it out.  I actually don't mind her, I think she adds something to the scene by not being "another person walks past the camera in a hurry" but what do I, guy on the internet, know about anything? As far as "dumb nitpicks" are concerned, personally the most jarring thing in the episode is still the Limo doing the hand break turn on where it's clearly done on an Airport or something. But I mean, it's probably just how it had to be done so it's a nothing criticism, that's just how you make TV. edit:  I forgot about this guy 
algebra testes fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Each part of the two-parter is great. I did laugh at Schlamme's aside about how casting a southerner seemed antithetical to Sorkin's language, though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Each part of the two-parter is great. I did laugh at Schlamme's aside about how casting a southerner seemed antithetical to Sorkin's language, though. He's a Texan though, I don't think he was trying burn Southerners
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:
I haven't finished the episode yet, do they mention the Secret Service guy in the ER who's literally just standing in one place, waiting for his cue to mention that the President's on the way? Last three seconds of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWy4P5uXqgE
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:I haven't finished the episode yet, do they mention the Secret Service guy in the ER who's literally just standing in one place, waiting for his cue to mention that the President's on the way? Last three seconds of this video: Hah, that one always bothers me on every rewatch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Yep I knew who you meant before I clicked the link. I guess it's entirely plausible that that agent's job for those minutes is to stand right there but it feels funny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Has anyone watched Designated Survivor? I just checked out the first two episodes and unfortunately it's pretty bad. It's not unwatchable or anything, but the tone and emotion of almost every scene doesn't fit at all with the circumstances. Everyone in the US government gets blown up and the show seems to forget about it half the time even though it's only 2 episodes in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Has anyone watched Designated Survivor? I just checked out the first two episodes and unfortunately it's pretty bad. It's not unwatchable or anything, but the tone and emotion of almost every scene doesn't fit at all with the circumstances. Everyone in the US government gets blown up and the show seems to forget about it half the time even though it's only 2 episodes in. I think the very concept and the presence of Kiefer Sutherland was all the clues I needed
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
I dunno, Kiefer's an interesting enough actor when he tries. He's got some offbeat but fascinating performances in his filmography, just look at Dark City for one. Also, he was good in A Few Good Men, even if the part was relatively small.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
President. Jack. Bauer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Has anyone watched Designated Survivor? I just checked out the first two episodes and unfortunately it's pretty bad. It's not unwatchable or anything, but the tone and emotion of almost every scene doesn't fit at all with the circumstances. Everyone in the US government gets blown up and the show seems to forget about it half the time even though it's only 2 episodes in. It sounds exactly like the Tom Clancy book where Jack Ryan gets to be president after a treacherous Jap crashes a jet airliner into the rest of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, killing them all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
I think it's pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:President. Jack. Bauer. Picturing the show like this as you watch it makes it go from 'passable' to 'really loving good'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
While Mandy was a major character part, I also found the deletion without comment of Rina (A lawsuit waiting to happen) from season 5 to 6 jarring(Last seen in the Supremes). It's hard to notice stuff with all the other jarring things about season six but that one stood out for me on a re-watch. Now starting season seven on my first re-watch and it's like finishing your greens. I'm going to do it but I'm not really enjoying it as much as the rest of dinner. That said Margaret remains one of the greatest pieces of American comedy performance and writing I have ever seen regardless of the season.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
"We've got checks and balances, separation of powers... and then there's Margaret, vetoing bills and sending them back to the Hill."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Now starting season seven on my first re-watch and it's like finishing your greens. Season seven is fine if you stick to just the campaign episodes. The White House stuff is pretty bad, particularly the awful Toby plot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Season seven is fine if you stick to just the campaign episodes. The White House stuff is pretty bad, particularly the awful Toby plot. It's so bad. I hear Schiff has never even seen it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Yeah seasons 6-7 are good if you ignore all the White House focused episodes. The only good ones focus on either Santos or the Vinick campaign. I really like the one where Vinick goes to the White House and meets Bartlet. Also the one where Vinick goes to Starbucks after he loses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I was watching the Supremes again recently and I'm still a bit hazy on the horse trade that takes place. It seriously feels like the Republicans accidentally picked a genuine constitutionalist, not the young arch-conservative that they were expected to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
I just did the non-White house run through seasons 6-7. The Vinick Starbucks episode is indeed great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
West Wing Weekly: Some amazing John Spencer stories this week. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
I'm kinda mad at the West Wing Weekly. They just did the episode where Donna has a bad date then comes back and talks to Ainsley. Some people commented on Twitter it was odd that they didn't bring up the subtext from those scenes being that Donna's date thought he was asking out Ainsley. That has always been my interpretation of their whole exchange and why Donna is so weird about it. Except now both Josh and Hrishi are on Twitter not only saying they don't believe this theory but that it is stupid and if you do think it you are dumb and making stuff up. It seems a pretty hostile reaction to someone offering an alternative interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Yeah they can be strangely churlish at times, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I'm kinda mad at the West Wing Weekly. They just did the episode where Donna has a bad date then comes back and talks to Ainsley. Some people commented on Twitter it was odd that they didn't bring up the subtext from those scenes being that Donna's date thought he was asking out Ainsley. That has always been my interpretation of their whole exchange and why Donna is so weird about it. This doesn't seem supported by the text at all though?... Lawyer guy even goes, "Are you Donna?" when he sees her at the taxi stand
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:This doesn't seem supported by the text at all though?... Not that episode. Season 2, Episode 7. Donna goes on a date we never see. She's really excited for it but then comes back early (she had two whiskey sours and a bowl of soup) and finds Ainsley (who she's never spoken to before) and starts awkwardly talking about how people think they look alike and has Ainsley ever considered dyeing her hair red and then later says to Josh that her date sucked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
I'm not going to say that interpretation is impossible, but if it is the written intent, I think it's really badly conveyed and I'd have to hear some actual confirmation from Sorkin before I buy it myself. Having said that, Hrishi and Josh are acting kinda dickish about it on twitter. Let people have their headcanon if that's what works for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
What? That seems to be the obvious implication. Donna comes back upset about her date and is wondering if her and Ainsley look alike.quote:DONNA
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
I care no more for their authority on The West Wing than I do for the chuckleheads that came up with that theory. The value of the podcast are the anecdotes from cast and crew they can wrangle onto the show. No, Josh doesn't count because he's an annoying chucklehead on and off screen. Lemon out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Yeah they can be strangely churlish at times, in my opinion. Yeah the disconnect between Hrishi's chill attitude on the podcast and his mild dickery on Twitter is a little odd. Apparently people were asking why they censor curse words on the pod and his response was "Well, my mother listens to the show and prefers it censored. And her opinion counts more than yours." (emphasis mine) Like, dude, just leave that second part out, it went from being kinda cute to you just being an rear end in a top hat to a stranger on the Internet. As for my unsolicited two cents on the censoring: Ok, fine, but maybe try to make an better effort to just not curse instead? And at the very least don't censor the stuff that would have been uncensored on network TV in 1999?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:I care no more for their authority on The West Wing than I do for the chuckleheads that came up with that theory. The value of the podcast are the anecdotes from cast and crew they can wrangle onto the show. No, Josh doesn't count because he's an annoying chucklehead on and off screen. Lemon out. I agree, it just felt very confrontational to use the podcast's twitter to tell fans that their theories are wrong and dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I'm kinda mad at the West Wing Weekly. They just did the episode where Donna has a bad date then comes back and talks to Ainsley. Some people commented on Twitter it was odd that they didn't bring up the subtext from those scenes being that Donna's date thought he was asking out Ainsley. That has always been my interpretation of their whole exchange and why Donna is so weird about it. For whatever it's worth I think I've watched season two at least six times and this mistaken identity subtext has never even occurred to me. Now that it comes up, I guess I can see it, but it seems completely unsupported. No reason to be a dick about it though, it's fun to poke at stories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
I never took the "do you think we look alike" to be anything but the show conveying Donna's mood by having her be random. In the same episode but following scene with her and Ainsley she is still rambling about playing the flute or being a flutist in some fantasy about meeting interesting men. Then there's another scene with her and Josh where she says that the date stunk and that he was with some lobbyist group and was full of himself. None of that gives the impression that the guy thought she was Ainsley. She had a bad date and she was in a bad mood. It's hardly the only time the show had Donna act or say something random as a way of segueing into whatever was particularly bothering her. I do agree that Hrishi and Josh can be a bit churlish though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Buane posted:I never took the "do you think we look alike" to be anything but the show conveying Donna's mood by having her be random. In the same episode but following scene with her and Ainsley she is still rambling about playing the flute or being a flutist in some fantasy about meeting interesting men. Then there's another scene with her and Josh where she says that the date stunk and that he was with some lobbyist group and was full of himself. None of that gives the impression that the guy thought she was Ainsley. It's her being frustrated that she can't get a date, because earlier she was very excited for this guy and then something bad happened on the date and then it was a bad date. It was someone she met briefly at a party before that and then they had a really short date, so it fits with the confusion. But really I just don't know how you can watch the way Donna acts in this scene and come to any other conclusion. Donna is weird, but she's not that weird. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIm2YpNXVS0
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
I take the "do we look alike" to be a bout of jealousy from Donna. Maybe she caught Josh looking at Ainsley, or is maybe annoyed that he asked Ainsley for help instead of her (unreasonable given their respective qualifications but nobody said jealousy is rational)? However it happened, we are supposed to see Donna as jealous, and presumably Josh is oblivious as usual. The strange riff about the instruments kinda continues that, and I think I'd also written to be funny (dunno if it lands). You're supposed to sarcastically reply "yes Donna you'd be infinitely happier if you picked a different instrument to play, ideally the same one Ainsley picked". I feel like we get some similar (if more blatant) story beats when Amy Gardner arrives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Buane posted:I do agree that Hrishi and Josh can be a bit churlish though. Josh is a hilarious dickhead, and Hrishi is a gentle obsessive nerd. They're fine just the way they are
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
Asiina posted:Not that episode. Season 2, Episode 7. Donna goes on a date we never see. She's really excited for it but then comes back early (she had two whiskey sours and a bowl of soup) and finds Ainsley (who she's never spoken to before) and starts awkwardly talking about how people think they look alike and has Ainsley ever considered dyeing her hair red and then later says to Josh that her date sucked. Oh word. Sorry about that Buane posted:I never took the "do you think we look alike" to be anything but the show conveying Donna's mood by having her be random. In the same episode but following scene with her and Ainsley she is still rambling about playing the flute or being a flutist in some fantasy about meeting interesting men. Then there's another scene with her and Josh where she says that the date stunk and that he was with some lobbyist group and was full of himself. None of that gives the impression that the guy thought she was Ainsley. Yeah I agree with this. I've seen the series a ton and yeah after it being pointed out I can kinda see how someone could think she got mistaken for Ainsley, but everytime I've ever done a rewatch I always just see it as Donna bugging Ainsley; a kind of modified "whatcha doin whatcha doin"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:15
|
|