|
Khablam posted:The undecideds in the 2016 election were the highest in modern history, and many other celebs and even ex-presidents didn't pick a side. Lol "ex-presidents didn't pick a side"? You mean the two Republican ex presidents didn't support their party's candidate. It's topsy turvy world like Alan Alda being on the right side of clean energy when he's facing santos.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Lowe got hosed and betrayed by the network and the show. It's a testament to how much he loves the character and the show itself that he does anything at all like the podcast. He was the big star that anchored it to get the pilot, it was supposed to be a show about Sam and became an ensemble. The cast all got raises and the network would not negotiate with him for even parity in salary. He went to Aaron directly and asked him to speak up for him, but Aaron had his own problems and just looked at him. Never lifted a finger to keep him. Lowe got chewed up when he was younger with the sex tape with a minor being filmed the night before the Democratic National Convention, etc etc. He's a good egg, and a sweet guy in real life, but you can't hang in a room with someone so genetically gifted for very long.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Yeah to be fair to Lowe, at a certain point they weren't even including him on publicity photos. Like yeah he thought that Sam was going to be the lead role and I think he was fine being part of an ensemble until Sorkin had a lot less for him to do. I'm part the way through S3 again now and Sam is just sort of...I guess off to the side? For his part, he has also said that by the time they got to S4 that he thought the writing was on the wall for Sorkin (By this point he was regularly holding back production because he couldn't turn scripts in on time) and so thought the writing was on the wall for the show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
I can't believe the undecideds looked at Trump and still wanted to throw the dice on those odds. Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a cracker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
If you get all your news from Facebook I can see how that could happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
SyRauk posted:I can't believe the undecideds looked at Trump and still wanted to throw the dice on those odds. Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a cracker. The Apprentice TV show is honestly a huge reason. It was a giant propaganda piece about how Trump is the best businessman/leader/decider ever and it ran for years and years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Equatorial Kundu was named in iZombie Season 3 Episode 1. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
I always wonder if that's in itself a sad comment on the US foreign outlook. 'We'll just make up a fake African-sounding country and make it have genocide going on'. Can you imagine if they made fake US state names for stories, or fake EU countries for the same? I never got why they needed to make a fake country up. It's as bad as all the durkadurkastan poo poo 24 pulled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Khablam posted:I never got why they needed to make a fake country up. Because if you use a real country and imply that bad poo poo is happening there, that country's ambassador gets all mad and yells at the network.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
I've mentioned it before, but I hope the podcast covers Sorkin's cocaine use and how he was holding up production and whatnot (someone mentioned that here a couple posts ago, I don't remember hearing that part before). Not to shame him or whatever, I just think they should cover the facts of what happened. He's a great writer, and his drug use doesn't change that. They probably won't though. Oh well. I found the second guy they talked to on the podcast (the press secretary dude) today incredibly boring. He's probably the first guest who I didn't at least get minor enjoyment from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
We are also starting to get to the point where the burnout begins and the episode quality begins to dip. Not that they aren't still good but definately less memorable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Khablam posted:Can you imagine if they made fake US state names for stories, or fake EU countries for the same? Well movies do this often, too. Just with less nefarious intentions. Like Princess Diaries taking place in Genovia, which just so happens to be the most diverse country in the world, both in races and, somehow, accents. (Chris Pine is related to John Rhys Davis, and from the same country? O...kay) The reason is usually so they either don't offend the residents of a specific country, or don't have people saying, "But Luxembourg isn't anything like that!" It's lazy, but understandable. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
That and a show meant for the US has the advantage that its average viewer doesn't actually know or care Kundu is made-up, but if you tried to pass off a fake US state, THOSE they had to memorize in school.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Because if you use a real country and imply that bad poo poo is happening there, that country's ambassador gets all mad and yells at the network. And how does this not apply for all the non-african countries that "do bad poo poo" in the show? Or states, etc? It just sits bad with me that a writer can just say "oh all THOSE countries are like that right?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Let's be clear. The pod cast isn't very good on it's own. They criticize distinctly period choices through a modern lens. When they get nitpicky which is every time they don't have a guest, and most times they do- it's inane and boring. The merits of the podcast exist in their ability to attract people that worked on it to recall anecdotes about the process of it's creation or relate real world perspectives to the show itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:Let's be clear. The pod cast isn't very good on it's own. They criticize distinctly period choices through a modern lens. When they get nitpicky which is every time they don't have a guest, and most times they do- it's inane and boring. The merits of the podcast exist in their ability to attract people that worked on it to recall anecdotes about the process of it's creation or relate real world perspectives to the show itself. Disagree
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
It always pissed me off that staffers though Micronesia wasn't a real country. I knew that in high school and I wasn't even a geography person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:Let's be clear. The pod cast isn't very good on it's own. They criticize distinctly period choices through a modern lens. When they get nitpicky which is every time they don't have a guest, and most times they do- it's inane and boring. The merits of the podcast exist in their ability to attract people that worked on it to recall anecdotes about the process of it's creation or relate real world perspectives to the show itself. Disagree completely. Them discussing the episode is why I listen, most of the guests are terrible and haven't even been on the show. Almost every "political" guest they've had has been boring and awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
I've only recently caught up on the podcast, but during their episodes for season 1, they kept referring to Bartlet as having lost the popular vote based on the line that "most people voted for someone else." I thought it was a reference to Clinton only ever winning a plurality of the popular vote, not losing it outright.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
McNally posted:I've only recently caught up on the podcast, but during their episodes for season 1, they kept referring to Bartlet as having lost the popular vote based on the line that "most people voted for someone else." I'm pretty sure they're wrong, unless Sorkin has confirmed that was what he meant. It's pretty clear Sorkin meant there was a spoiler in the election, not that fake America pulled a Bush v. Gore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
I think the way Bartlet says it implies there was a Perot type figure. He says "A majority of the people voted for someone else." If it was a Bush v Gore situation, or (puke, Clinton vs Trump) situation, he would have said "a majority of people voted for my opponent," who, now that I think of it, was never actually mentioned? Do we know anything about his election to first term, beyond some of the New Hampshire primary flash backs with Josh?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
We do know that Hoynes somehow delivered him the south despite losing his home state by 20 points. Though I just realized he might have meant the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Yeah I think he got whooped in the primaries in the beginning, even New Hampshire, but turned around and won New Hampshire in the general, and Hoynes delivered the south in the general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
meatbag posted:We do know that Hoynes somehow delivered him the south despite losing his home state by 20 points. He lost Texas in the primaries and the general, despite having Hoynes
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:We are also starting to get to the point where the burnout begins and the episode quality begins to dip. Not that they aren't still good but definately less memorable. I actually really like Season 3 so far. It's always the season I remember the least about (Which maybe says something), but I like that the walls are starting to close in. The early episodes are great for it: people gently caress up, and they don't know what to do for once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
McNally posted:I've only recently caught up on the podcast, but during their episodes for season 1, they kept referring to Bartlet as having lost the popular vote based on the line that "most people voted for someone else." Bartlett did win with a plurality -- "Most people voted for someone else" doesn't mean "...one specific other person", it means that the majority can say, 'I voted for someone else.' Yeah, the phrasing is a bit too clever for its own good, but that's Sorkin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
WoG posted:Bartlett did win with a plurality -- "Most people voted for someone else" doesn't mean "...one specific other person", it means that the majority can say, 'I voted for someone else.' Yeah, the phrasing is a bit too clever for its own good, but that's Sorkin. I think it's more of a change in the political landscape than something ambiguously written. When it was written, the last time a president was elected while still losing the popular vote was Benjamin Harrison and it had only happened a few times in American history. "Most Americans voted for someone else" is clearly a reference to a plurality, just like Clinton! Twice! It happened seven times in the 20th century, so it's not like it was completely unknown and was, hell, still fresh on everyone's minds. Haven't they said that the beginning of the show was loosely based on Clinton's early couple years in office? Making Bartlett also a winner by plurality follows that nicely. Then came the 2000 election and it became a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
The line never stood out to me, because in the UK & Europe that's every election result ever. I never know why US politicians don't discuss (most of) the rest of the world when someone says 49% isn't a mandate; the rest of the world gets poo poo done with 3+ primary parties and the winning party netting 38% or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Khablam posted:The line never stood out to me, because in the UK & Europe that's every election result ever. American exceptionalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
I forget, but is it ever mentioned who Bartlett actually beats the first time around?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
It was some republican. Wasn't there also an episode where Bartlett actually met the previous President? e: yeah it was James Cromwell
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:It was some republican. Wasn't there also an episode where Bartlett actually met the previous President? e: yeah it was James Cromwell He was the last Democratic president before President Bartlet, not the previous president. If President Barlet was Clinton then President Newman was Carter
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
I think in universe, the elections got pushed forward two years; Gerald Ford was only president until 1975 and we ran another election early rather than him finishing up Nixon's second term; other than the two year bump, the order of presidents was the same up through Reagan. Newman (James Cromwell) got elected in 86 for one term, then it was Lassiter for eight years, then Bartlet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Who's the last real president that ever gets mentioned in the show? Nixon? Watergate was alluded to during the MS storyline. I don't remember any reference to Ford/Carter or anything from their administrations but I wasn't alive then and I'm not American so I might have missed it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Who's the last real president that ever gets mentioned in the show? Nixon? Watergate was alluded to during the MS storyline. I don't remember any reference to Ford/Carter or anything from their administrations but I wasn't alive then and I'm not American so I might have missed it. I think they said Eisenhower was their real life cutoff. Ideally they wanted to not mention any post-Eisenhower President by name. However, they definitely bring up the Kennedy Space Center, apparently the writers would joke that it was named for George Kennedy. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think they said Eisenhower was their real life cutoff. Ideally they wanted to not mention any post-Eisenhower President by name. However, they definitely bring up the Kennedy Space Center, apparently the writers would joke that it was named for George Kennedy. Actually that was about the Kennedy Center in DC. Like the performing arts center. Because they actually film there once or twice. But yeah, still funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Disagree completely. Them discussing the episode is why I listen, most of the guests are terrible and haven't even been on the show. Almost every "political" guest they've had has been boring and awful. The best guest they ever had was the costume and set designers, they need more people from behind the scenes like that. I almost always skip past the actor interviews because Hrishi starts with "how did you get the part?" every single time and it's never, ever interesting. I think I've brought this up in the thread before. Also, guys, stop trying to drop sick  s on random people on Twitter, nobody cares.WoG posted:Bartlett did win with a plurality -- "Most people voted for someone else" doesn't mean "...one specific other person", it means that the majority can say, 'I voted for someone else.' Yeah, the phrasing is a bit too clever for its own good, but that's Sorkin. Yeah, this is how I always interpreted that line and I was honestly surprised anyone else thought any differently. Before 2000, the split popular vote/electoral vote only happened, like, twice before, and one of those times was for Rutherford Hayes which was such an insane situation it barely counts. You'd think if that was the case they would have explicitly said that. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:The best guest they ever had was the costume and set designers, they need more people from behind the scenes like that. I almost always skip past the actor interviews because Hrishi starts with "how did you get the part?" every single time and it's never, ever interesting. I think I've brought this up in the thread before. I'm the opposite - I love hearing about the audition process, even if it's often formulaic. IMO the best guests have been our boy Sorkin himself, and Agent Butterfield. I haven't even listened to Janel Moloney's one all the way through because she is annoying as gently caress And the twitter thing, I dunno, iceburns are kind of the whole point of Twitter, at least it's a bit more real than fawning fanservice
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
I love the actor interviews, and I love hearing how they got the part. Rob Lowe's story about signing the contract while in costuming the day before shooting was great. And Dule Hill talking about wearing the same thing to the second audition because, hell, it worked the first time. And Richard Schiff talking about how terrible he is at auditions, and how the room was already prepped for that. That stuff is great. Honestly I've liked most of the interviews from everyone they've talked to. The only person I haven't loved in her interviews has been Emily Procter, mainly because she keeps hinting at stories but not telling them. (paraphrasing) "Do you have any stories about the audition?" "Oh my god, so many stories I could tell..." *proceeds to move on to something unrelated* But even she was better in her most recent appearance, talking about the ERA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I love the actor interviews, and I love hearing how they got the part. Rob Lowe's story about signing the contract while in costuming the day before shooting was great. And Dule Hill talking about wearing the same thing to the second audition because, hell, it worked the first time. And Richard Schiff talking about how terrible he is at auditions, and how the room was already prepped for that. That stuff is great. Honestly I've liked most of the interviews from everyone they've talked to. The story about Ainsley originally being from Montana and Emily just doing it in her normal accent anyway was pretty good. I'm still catching up on the podcast (halfway through season 2), but Emily Proctor was one of my favorite guests so far
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:45
|
|