|
I almost made a West Wing thread yesterday because it was suddenly popping up in a lot of threads and didn't have it's own. Probably my favourite TV drama ever and one of the few shows that I can watch over and over without getting tired of it. Not a huge fan of Seasons 5 and 6, but still very watchable. Seven was great though. In general I loved all the campaigning stuff both Santos and the Bartlett flashbacks. So many great episodes and moments it's hard to pick favourites. Leo 
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2011 09:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Do we really need spoilers for a show that ended five years ago? It's not like an spoiler-free rewatch thread or anything.mcbexx posted:Matthew Perry Matthew Perry as a guest star amused me because the actor was referenced earlier in the show. So in the West Wing universe Matthew Perry also exists as an actor. Then again in Studio 60 (hey Matthew Perry again) there's a Bartlet campaign poster in one of the rooms, and Alison Janney is in playing herself... so in the Studio 60 universe etc, etc. MY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF! I don't actually care about that stuff, it just amused me. On an unrelated note does anyone else thing Sorkin is really heavily influenced by MASH? Particularly later MASH when it was more dramatic. He's a big fan of framing episodes with a "gimmick". Like an event through the eyes of a secondary character or as a letter to a relative and a few other things like that (many of these lifted directly from similar episodes on Sports Night). A lot of these are things that MASH did first and I've always thought it was a big influence on him. I guess Sports Night is a better comparison as it has a similar tone with regards to serious business in a sitcom.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 09:21
|
|
|
scarymonkey posted:Speaking of MASH I would say Donna is pretty much Radar, Josh has a bit of Hawkeye in him, and Leo is Col. Potter. Or more specifically Stanley Keyworth is Sidney Freedman. Another framing device, a heart-to-heart with your shrink. But yeah, I guess MASH did influence a lot of stuff. I think it really shows in Sorkin though. drat this thread for making me want to do another rewatch. It's really rare for me. A lot of shows I love I just have no interest in rewatching. West Wing I've watched all the way through twice and many epsiodes in series one and two three or four times. My biggest problem is how morish I find it, especially near the beginning and season 7. It's the only drama where I can watch three or four episodes back-to-back. Two in the morning? Oh, OK one more episode. Gravy Jones fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Jul 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 11:04
|
|
|
El Bandit posted:"Then why not call it in the invasion of Normandy in the first place, you smug prick?" is a natural reaction to that sort of thing, but everyone always just looks appreciative that they have such a fine mind in their presence. Perhaps Sorkin behaves that way and thinks he is similarly admired. Sorkin's characters regularly get called on it and several times it causes serious problems for them time and time again. If it is a character trait that Sorkin shares with his characters then I think the writing demonstrates that a sense of awareness that what might be "admired" in one context might be a flaw in another. quote:You humiliated my President tonight and for no other reason than to show These are smart people, who like being smart and hanging out with other smart people. I love the scenes when Bartlett is quizzing them or schooling others on economics or whatever. But even he goes too far at times. I think it's made clear that they struggle with keeping their urges to be the smartest guys in the room at all times in check when they're in environments that it's not going to do them any favours. On a vaguely related not someone already mentioned the Santos-Obama parallels, but it only just occured to me that Governer Richie is a proto-Sarah Palin. Crime? Boy, I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
Chajusong posted:Uh, Richie is pretty clearly based on another pretty high profile southern governor from a big state with a reputation for being not-so-bright. Yeah I can see that. Did Bush actually play up to that reputation and try and win over people with the folksy charm thing when campaigning though? I don't actually know the answer as I really wasn't following US politics particularly closely at the time. I can see how the ".22-caliber mind in a .357 Magnum world" quote and stuff like that applies. I just thought Richie tended towards playing into the "well shucks" aspect of it all was a bit Palinesque. Bush always came across as just plain inept to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Tom Tucker posted:Then Donna goes to Israel or something and ugh. But Jason Isaacs  Josh was easily the best character later in the show's run. I want someone to make a fan-edit of Season 7 that's all Josh/Santos/Vinick and cuts any White House plots that don't directly concern the campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:Just started Sports Night for the first time. Wow... that pilot is seriously confused. Is it a sit-com? Is it a precursor to West Wing? There's definitely some beautiful set ups and pay offs by Mr. Sorkin. I wonder if I can make it through the next 44 episodes. Sure you can. And if you get bored of it at least you can occupy yourself by pointing out plots, themes and actors he recycled in the West Wing. There's a lot of them. It's a great show in it's own right but suffered because a lot of the time what Sorkin was trying to do just didn't fit into the format. Especially some of those "beautiful set ups and pay offs". It's a lot more difficult to earn them (if that's the right way of putting it) in such a short span of time. On top of that you have a subject matter that is somewhat limited in terms of dramatic pay-offs. For me Studio 60 suffered from the same problem. I mean I know a lot of people had plenty of problems with it, but overall I enjoyed the show. The environment of the show just didn't provide a good match for the weighty plots Sorkin likes to toss around and play with. So you end up with some fairly stupid stuff shoe-horned into a dramedy about a comedy show. Three episode arcs about kidnapped soldiers simply don't make sense in the context of the show, it's like a "derail". Especially in the shadow of The West Wing where these kind of high stake plots make more sense. I'm hoping "More As This Story Develops" works better and you can kind of have the best of both worlds. The behind the scenes stuff that works from his previous shows coupled with an environment where weighty subject matter makes more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
I said don't say that. Say they're smug and superior. Say their approach to public policy makes you want to tear your hair out. Say they like high taxes and spending your money. Say they want to take your guns and open your borders, but don't call them worthless. At least don't do it in front of me. The people that I have met have been extraordinarily qualified, their intent is good. Their commitment is true, they are righteous, and they are patriots. And I'm their lawyer. It's not quite as long as you remember, but yeah, it's pretty clunky. That said I don't think the same applies to the rest of the episode where I think Ainsley gives as good as she gets. Also all the Leo/Ainsley scenes are gold. I think the show tends to miss more than it hits when it tries to do the bipartison or "good republican" stuff, especially when Sorkin was at the helm. Although I thought Josh's gay congressman friend episode was fairly good. Although I've got to love "Just doesn't sit well on viewing #8". Sums up the show for me pretty well. There are epsisodes, scenes and characters that by the eight viewing I'm not so fond of. But 99% of the stuff I watch on TV, even things I love, I will only ever watch once. I'm not really one for watching TV shows multiple times. West Wing (along with a couple of others) is the big exception to that rule.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2011 10:42
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:So my roommate and I have settled on CJ for the girl, but we're debating between Sam and Leo for the boy. Thoughts? They should be Ed and Larry regardless of gender 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:I just thought it was strange that the VP holds a meeting early in season 1, yet it is somehow a reveal in season 3 that he is... an alcoholic. I thought it was obvious to the rest of us two years ago. Leo isn't shocked. It's just the first time since he started going to Hoynes' meetings that this knowledge has become a conflict of interest due to the upcoming election and debate about whether or not Hoynes is going to be on the ticket. I can't remember the exact sequence of events but I suspect an "shock" exhibited by Leo is the realisation that the President needs to know that Hoynes is an alcoholic ASAP. If Hoynes is on the ticket and that comes out it could lose them the election (especially as it's compounded by the trouble caused by the revelation of Leo's addiction and the witch hunt that followed and the MS stuff). Had the MS come out at that point? I can't remember. Speaking of crying and The West Wing. Between the first run of the show and my second rewatch my wife was diagnosed with MS. Needless to say I cried a lot more the second time round  Well, in general there's a lot of tear-jerky stuff that gets me every time. Mrs Landingham's sons Mrs Landingham Josh's Dad Leo I think Leo was the worst because you just know how hard it must of been for the actors to keep it together. There probably wan't much acting involved.
Gravy Jones fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Sep 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 10:30
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:I'm going through the show for the first time, and midway through season 4 I'm struck by how much the Bartlet adminisitration touts its own horn about its accomplishments but we don't really see them recognized by other characters. It really seems like Bartlet's reelection is won over more because of his ability to charm the electorate than through actual policy victories. It also regularly shows them being frustrated by their lack of acomplishments and how the compromises they're forced to make water down what they want to achieve. At a character level I think you see a lot of this as well. Ideals being twisted by reality to the extent that they lose sight of their original motivations. kalensc posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-113WzilNA This has always been one of my favourite moments. Gravy Jones fucked around with this message at 11:04 on Sep 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2011 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
TheBigBad posted:The Afghanistan crap was Sorkin shoehorning issues in for some reason- but the network crap that resulted from it was pretty sound. The news room seems the best outlet for him. I like Studio 60 a lot. He does the behind-the-scenes stuff really well and that's been consistant through-out his career on both TV and in Film. I don't care about the sketch comedy parts, that was always such a non-issue to me. I do think it suffered from Sorkin being over indulgent with self-inserting his personal life/issues/problems. But yeah, the biggest problem for me was this, the shoehorning of issues that did not fit the setting. It happened to an extent in Sports Night but I think that got away with it more, possibly because it came before The West Wing. In Studio 60 the stakes were just so much lower than The West Wing that, with a few exceptions, the weighty issues seemed totally out of place. I agree the news room is a far better outlet all round and he can continue to do the comedy-drama behind-the-scenes stuff in an environment where it actually makes sense to frame narratives with weighty issues.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 14:50
|
|