|
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. It's addressed in the oral history of the show, but does Schiff or Sorkin talk about how - of all people - Eugene Levy was the frontrunner for the part of Toby? Even Sorkin said he was fantastic in the audition, but Schiff played the part differently than anyone else did.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted: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 Yeah, true, that was good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
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 middle class in this country, especially rural middle class, are hurting real bad and the liberal solution of "job retraining, and your kids can move away to the city" isn't a proper answer to them. In fact liberalism that was born with Carter, and solidified under Clinton and evangelized through The West Wing (except for maybe Toby) has failed them spectacularly. Their lives are so lovely right now, what the hell did they have to lose by fence sitting when Hillary was incredibly lovely and Trump was lying his rear end off (but at LEAST he talked to them and spoke on their issues). This past election and the fallout from it has basically ruined TWW for me.\ and I'd like Sorkin to shut the gently caress up about politics forever because the whole "respect the office" bullshit is still kind of influencing the democrats who seem more interested to appear to be doing the right thing instead of wielding power like the republicans do. Still, it's great seeing Donna on The Leftovers and I'll always love Dule Hill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
On Trump: No, he really didn't. He just was a perfect way to piss off all the Obama loyalists. Also, he was a white man. On the rural middle class: They were destroyed by Republican Supreme Court appointees who work for a conglomerate that killed the family farm through patents. They can blame whoever they want, and will until they are dust. They are getting exactly what they deserve based on their demographic voting patterns. On TWW: Respect the Sorkin. He earned it and good television is good television regardless if today's politics makes Veep more plausible than reality. If not, respect the characters. I'm sure they've earned it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Nah. It's really bad and democrats need to stop worshiping it as anything other than entertainment. Also the podcast is really bad since trump got elected. Malina is extra lovely since the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
This idea that The West Wing, a loving fictional TV show, is in any way responsible for the election results or the way Democrats act is completely absurd. Like, it's super "woke" to write a big thinkpiece about how The West Wing gave us Trump, but it didn't. No one cares about a show that's been off the air for this long. The only TV show that got Trump elected is The Apprentice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This idea that The West Wing, a loving fictional TV show, is in any way responsible for the election results or the way Democrats act is completely absurd. I didn't say any of that. But democrats absolutely idolize the show and it's loving bad because deep down the Bartlett White House is a lovely neoliberal collection of wonks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Nah. It's really bad and democrats need to stop worshiping it as anything other than entertainment. Also the podcast is really bad since trump got elected. Malina is extra lovely since the election. All your opinions are real bad. WampaLord posted:Like, it's super "woke" to write a big thinkpiece about how The West Wing gave us Trump no it isn't
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:I didn't say any of that. But democrats absolutely idolize the show and it's loving bad because deep down the Bartlett White House is a lovely neoliberal collection of wonks. Okay, but "idolizes The West Wing" is like #500 on the list of "Problems the Democrats have" and yet it gets articles written up about it. Like, it's a symptom, not the cause of their dumb neoliberal beliefs. WeAreTheRomans posted:no it isn't Perhaps "woke" was the wrong word choice, maybe "trendy" is the better option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, but "idolizes The West Wing" is like #500 on the list of "Problems the Democrats have" and yet it gets articles written up about it. Like, it's a symptom, not the cause of their dumb neoliberal beliefs. I disagree. While I don't think it's super pressing, I think there was a Sorkinesque WW moment recently when Republicans nuked the judiciary filibuster recently and democrats went on record as saying "well when we're back in power, we're going to bring it back because the senate is a respectful institution where we carefully deliberate things and slow things down! RAH LOOK HOW GOOD WE ARE!" instead of hunkering down, doing even more work to win blue seats in red states and organize the senate so when a Dems swings back into he White House they can jam a young left judge down their throats to carry RBG's legacy. But no, it's all optics. And my favorite WW episode to this day is the one where they get a far left and far right judge on the court instead of centrists. I enjoy the show from an entertainment standpoint. Maybe Sorkins writing is a product of lovely neolib policies that have been spreading throughout the party since Carter. Or maybe he was coked out of his mind. But when the Obama White House has a "Big Block Of Cheese" day so Dems can get "all the feels", there's definitely an issue with them idolizing the tenets of the show. Maybe I was just blind to it before and November was the jolt I needed but goddamn the show is full of Really Bad Democratic Ideologies. E: for fucks sake the entire cast went on the campaign trail for Hillary, so it's definitely an influence within the party. Matt Zerella fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:I disagree. While I don't think it's super pressing, I think there was a Sorkinesque WW moment recently when Republicans nuked the judiciary filibuster recently and democrats went on record as saying "well when we're back in power, we're going to bring it back because the senate is a respectful institution where we carefully deliberate things and slow things down! RAH LOOK HOW GOOD WE ARE!" instead of hunkering down, doing even more work to win blue seats in red states and organize the senate so when a Dems swings back into he White House they can jam a young left judge down their throats to carry RBG's legacy. But no, it's all optics. Yes, but they would be exactly this dumb even if TWW never existed. That's my point, the show did not cause them to be dumb. Matt Zerella posted:Maybe Sorkins writing is a product of lovely neolib policies that have been spreading throughout the party since Carter. Or maybe he was coked out of his mind. It's this. His writing is a product of the bad system, not a cause of the bad system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's this. His writing is a product of the bad system, not a cause of the bad system. Fair enough. I guess I've just felt pretty goddamn annoyed seeing Dems pine for a WW style democrat lately through the prism of November and I guess I'm lashing out at the show. Which sucks because CJ and Charlie are such great characters. but I try to go back and watch and just end up yelling at the TV and switching over to Better Call Saul or something. I enjoy his son's writing though, Too Big To Fail was pretty good. I'd like to see him take a crack at a show on politics. WeAreTheRomans posted:All your opinions are real bad. Thanks. Does he still do the "Aye yay yay Trump" bit every 3 seconds and act really condescending/smug?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:And my favorite WW episode to this day is the one where they get a far left and far right judge on the court instead of centrists. But in true Sorkin fashion, the far right judge is actually secretly good because he's smart and respects the office. The West Wing absolutely pushes the ideas that decorum and civility matter more than material concerns, that polite reasoning will rule the day, and that hard work and intellect will get you wherever you need to go. The ideology in the show is toxic and its popularity is a good indicator of where white liberals are hilariously out of touch. It's also pretty clearly Sorkin's belief (see: The Newsroom and the recent public talk where he is STUNNED that people consider Hollywood to be sexist and racist) TWW is masterful television, no doubt, but it's hard to watch and not see how tone deaf its politics are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Thanks. Does he still do the "Aye yay yay Trump" bit every 3 seconds and act really condescending/smug? I think that's happened twice in the run of the podcast to date? Possibly 3 times but once was Hrishi. And yknow, the stark contrast between Trump and a fictional Good President is occasionally worth remarking on, even if it is hardly a revelatory insight. You sound pretty bitter about things that have nothing to do with the podcast or the show, but remember the option to not engage with either exists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:TWW is masterful television, no doubt, but it's hard to watch and not see how tone deaf its politics are. Absolutely. I totally agree with this statement, I just don't think the show is "responsible" for anything going on in politics now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I think that's happened twice in the run of the podcast to date? Possibly 3 times but once was Hrishi. And yknow, the stark contrast between Trump and a fictional Good President is occasionally worth remarking on, even if it is hardly a revelatory insight. I seemed to remember it happening multiple times an episode for a good run there after November. I'm bitter about democrats being trash, yes. i am the bird posted:But in true Sorkin fashion, the far right judge is actually secretly good because he's smart and respects the office.  I forgot about that part. When Josh and Toby have a political orgasm about how "they work together, IT JUST WORKS JED"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Eh, I don't want to blow it out of proportion but it's not unfair to say that TWW influences our political society. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/why-the-west-wing-is-a-terrible-guide-to-american-democracy/263084/ quote:At a ceremony honoring Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reported that politicians in Burma have told her they've been attempting to understand democracy by watching Aaron Sorkin's celebrated show. It's actually not the first time a foreign official has made such a claim: European Union Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton told Newsweek in 2010 that she learned about America and "the mechanics of Washington life" from being "an avid viewer of The West Wing." Hillary Clinton, for her part, said she told one of the Burmese politicians that "I think we can do better than that." http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/04/aaron-sorkin-west-wing quote:It’s been nearly 6 years since the series finale of The West Wing, and more than 12 since the one-hour drama, which Sorkin created and largely wrote, first walked and talked its way through NBC’s Wednesday-night lineup; and yet you might think the series never ended, given the currency it still seems to enjoy in Washington, the frequency with which it comes up in D.C. conversations and is quoted or referenced on political blogs. In part this is because the smart, nerdy—they might prefer “precocious”—kids who grew up in the early part of the last decade worshipping the cool, technocratic charm of Sorkin’s characters have today matured into the young policy prodigies and press operatives who advise, brief, and excuse the behavior of the most powerful people in the country. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/05/west-wing-nostalgia/482022/ quote:The White House press briefing has been presided over by its share of celebrity guests over the years, but when C.J. Cregg took the podium on April 29, it might’ve marked the first appearance of a fictional character. “Josh is out today, he has ... I believe it’s a root canal?” she quipped, probably referring to the incumbent Press Secretary Josh Earnest—or was it Josh Lyman, who had once stepped in for C.J. after her own dental emergency? Either way, she’d lost none of her poise. “Let’s be honest, I’m better at this than he is anyway,” she joked. Add in this kind of cultural capital (and the podcast, the cast showing up in political ads, Martin Sheen on the trail as President Bartlet, etc.) and it's pretty clear that TWW does influence the way people think about and discuss politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Eh, I don't want to blow it out of proportion but it's not unfair to say that TWW influences our political society. Sure, I'm not saying it has 0 impact, but the impact it has is trivial at best. The Dems were bad long before TWW ever existed and politicians were just as awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Sure, I'm not saying it has 0 impact, but the impact it has is trivial at best. The Dems were bad long before TWW ever existed and politicians were just as awful. Oh, for sure. I can't make a real case that it's more influential than it is just representative, but TWW nostalgia (for a time that never was) is real in my social circles and it's frustrating as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:. Also thats season 5 so not Sorkin. E yeah I have problems but we will see how it goes once Sorkin leaves, if they softball the show post Sorkin thats fine. But if they softball Sorkin stuff and then get hyper critical post Sorkin its gonna be real dumb. algebra testes fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YY4RfeX2Z4 It's better if we think of this as Sam Seaborn and not Rob Lowe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
One thing I miss on the post-Sorkin years is obviously his writing, but it's also the guiding hand of Tommy Schlame. There's less confidence in the directing and it looks like any other TV show. Anyway, NIGHT FIVE in S3 is a pretty interesting episode given today's current climate. Toby writes the speech condemning Islamic fanatics and basically he's told to 'Not all Muslims' the speech. It's a tricky situation and I like that there's no easy answer. Also, it's Adam Arkin's last appearance I think. And that's a shame because he's great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:One thing I miss on the post-Sorkin years is obviously his writing, but it's also the guiding hand of Tommy Schlame. There's less confidence in the directing and it looks like any other TV show. Nah, he has two more appearances after that. Posse Comitatus near the end of season 3, and Holy Night at Christmas time in season 4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YY4RfeX2Z4 KFCeaborn?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Nah, he has two more appearances after that. Posse Comitatus near the end of season 3, and Holy Night at Christmas time in season 4. Excellent. I wasn't sure but I couldn't remember. I think Arkin is probably the best recurring guest star they had, both for the energy that Arkin brought, and the fact that the character isn't subject to that same awe everyone has when faced with the President. It makes those scenes play out a lot differently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:But in true Sorkin fashion, the far right judge is actually secretly good because he's smart and respects the office. The one with Glenn Close and William Fichtner? Sorkin had nothing to do with that episode. I actually like that episode though. I see nothing wrong with wanting judges that aren't pricks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Forgot to mention in NIGHT FIVE, it has probably one of the worst things Sorkin has written, where Sam compliments Ainsley and a staffer is bothered by it. The argument itself isn't all that bad. You know Sam and know that he means it affectionately towards a friend, but then Sorkin puts the counter-point in Ainsley's mouth instead and it really sounds like he just wanted to lecture people on what feminism could be. Usually Sorkin wraps up the points he wants to make in great dialogue, but everything in that scene is extraordinarily on the nose. And to top it off moments before Sam is laughing at Charlie because he lost a basketball game to his sister
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:The one with Glenn Close and William Fichtner? Sorkin had nothing to do with that episode. I actually like that episode though. I see nothing wrong with wanting judges that aren't pricks. I know it's not Sorkin but it's the same Sorkinesque belief that being smart and civil = being good. The ultra right wing judge is not a 'prick' because he's smart and civil, unlike those other conservatives. Just, uh, nevermind that his rulings will gently caress over underserved people and undermine almost everything that the Bartlet administration fights for. edit: imagine a world where advisors tell the president to dual-nominate RBG and Scalia, and then they all nod knowingly when the two of them engage in friendly banter about the law. It's not unrealistic for people to fantasize about that horseshit (for evidence: read any of the gushing essays about the RBG/Scalia friendship) but it's dumb as all hell and no good partisan, ideologue, or policy wonk would advocate for it unless they bought into an awful belief that ignored material concerns in favor of tone/civility/tradition/etc. -- which means that the Bartlet team is either a) bad at their jobs or b) dumb as poo poo. i am the bird fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:I know it's not Sorkin but it's the same Sorkinesque belief that being smart and civil = being good. The ultra right wing judge is not a 'prick' because he's smart and civil, unlike those other conservatives. Just, uh, nevermind that his rulings will gently caress over underserved people and undermine almost everything that the Bartlet administration fights for. You could have communicated these ideas more civilly, and it's President Bartlet's team. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
In case you haven't had enough of Blue Apron ad reads, Alison Janney is on the Woman of Qumar episode of TWW I haven't listened to the podcast, but I thought this episode stunk when I re-watched it recently.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:In case you haven't had enough of Blue Apron ad reads, Alison Janney is on the Woman of Qumar episode of TWW They agree.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
The first time I saw that episode I thought wow thats powerful stuff, so it's sad to see it doesn't hold up well at all. It kind of makes CJ ignorant and insufferable. And then you have that weird ending where Nancy has to talk her down and it just ends up looking like CJ is some hysterical woman. The only thing I do like is that it fits the theme of season 3, which is for all their ideologically, they still have to do lovely things because that's the way the world works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:The first time I saw that episode I thought wow thats powerful stuff, so it's sad to see it doesn't hold up well at all. It kind of makes CJ ignorant and insufferable. And then you have that weird ending where Nancy has to talk her down and it just ends up looking like CJ is some hysterical woman. Yeah, I especially hate the scene with the WWII vets. Like, I get why you're mad CJ, but your fight is not with them, why are you trying to make them feel lovely?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Yeah, I especially hate the scene with the WWII vets. Like, I get why you're mad CJ, but your fight is not with them, why are you trying to make them feel lovely? Yeah with all that it feels like there should be bigger consequences for CJ. Or really she shouldn't be in that situation at all. I think on watching it again it tends to ring false because Sorkin doesn't really care about carrying these things on across episodes. His characters are all consistent, but something they care about this week isn't necessarily the thing they'll care about in two weeks time. But like Josh said in the podcast, it's one of those episodes where Sorkin just tries to do everything in 42 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
I'm glad they both bounced hard off the idea of making up generic countries to fill a stereotype. Qumar & Equatorial Kundu are lovely stand ins. I liked the episode when I first saw it, but it does not stand up to any scrutiny at all. CJ is put across as a histrionic woman complaining about a women's issue, when we've seen her character already be so much smarter. Why not give her a logical argument? There's a huge case to be made that trade, of arms or anything, can be used as leverage to bring about human rights; whether or not this works or not would make a more interesting discussion than the weird single-issue situation the episode presents. Also any decent podcast app will give you a 30s skip option. The ads are all about 2mins so skip 4 times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
I haven't finished this episode of the podcast yet, but one thing that stuck out to me was them being mad that CJ had to be the one talking about the women's issue, and it would have been nice to have Sam or someone else be the one who is advocating for it here. My problem is I feel like if it was Sam's issue (or any of the men) they would have probably been mad about how the show always needs a man to solve a problem and doesn't let the women contribute. I mean, they still aren't wrong in their criticism. I just don't think that part specifically was an honest suggestion
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
I'm not sure where I stand, but it makes some sense. It doesn't really feel like the show is making an honest attempt to grapple with the issue. The dissent aims at an inexplicably fictional country, comes from just one character, who is acting somewhat uncharacteristically, and who happens to be one of the only two recurring women characters on a show dominated by men who otherwise spend the episode making sweeping comments about "the women around here". Swapping every CJ line and Sam line then doing a reshoot obviously doesn't fix things, nor do I imagine it was meant as such a suggestion. I think that's the line of thought though, or at least that's how I heard it. Also I'm rewatching the show for the nth time, and I don't know if it's the podcast or the changing times or what, but it's really hitting me how Sam does not miss an opportunity to be a piece of poo poo sexist. It would be an interesting character flaw except the show takes his side in every instance. I know that's not a revelatory observation or anything. Dude's just relentless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:Also I'm rewatching the show for the nth time, and I don't know if it's the podcast or the changing times or what, but it's really hitting me how Sam does not miss an opportunity to be a piece of poo poo sexist. It would be an interesting character flaw except the show takes his side in every instance. I know that's not a revelatory observation or anything. Dude's just relentless. And yet, the one episode where they decide to call him out, they use the loving dumbest resolution imaginable, where Ainsley basically proclaims her brand of feminism as the only brand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
I guess I have complicated feelings about this episode, and they are mainly that this show has this odious "Our brand of liberalism or no liberalism" and the whole "tenuous relationship to women and women's issues". "Our brand of liberalism or no liberalism" is something that recurs in this season later on when they get all huffy that a left wing candidate is running for president because the president is too central. This episode feels like "why should we care about ~women's issues~" we're the democratic party we're better than the other people. Where as we know "being better than the other people" is a really bad argument for why its' acceptable to not care about things like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:And yet, the one episode where they decide to call him out, they use the loving dumbest resolution imaginable, where Ainsley basically proclaims her brand of feminism as the only brand. Ainsley doesn't need no government to protect her rights! Unless it's her right to own a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 03:35
|
|