|
BigHead posted:The Thanksgiving episode was by far the funniest thing my then-youthful brain had ever laughed at. "I had a thermometer presented to me by the personal chef of the King of... auto sales... in Fargo. Phil Baharnd." Any time I'm having a down day, this clip can cheer me up without fail.
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
I've been working through a rewatch with my wife, thanks to this thread. We're about to finish season 3, and I noticed one thing that's off. Does anyone else (who can remember it) think the episode "The Two Bartlets" (Season 3, episode 12) is just really weird and off? The direction seems to be completely out of place compared to the rest of the series. It's rather darkly lit, and there's a lot of long camera shots with the action taking place in the background. By which I mean, in over half the shots over half the screen is taken up by something blurry in the foreground, with the characters in the back ground, barely noticeable, and off to the side. I can't find any clips online, but it's the episode that starts with Amy showing up at Josh's apartment, and in that scene you see her at the door through a mirror, with random poo poo all over the screen blocking most of the action, including Josh. This is also one of the few episodes I've seen that confirms the year, when it shows Amy speaking somewhere in from of a sign that says something like, "Strategy 2002". I don't remember the exact wording, but the year was definitely 2002. They usually seemed to try to hide the year whenever possible, since it doesn't make all that much sense to have a presidential election in 2002, but here it was, front and center. I was really confused by the episode, and wondered if someone new had directed it. But it was directed by Alex Graves, who had directed quite a few episodes before. Apparently this was the last episode before he starting serving as "Supervising Producer", but that doesn't really explain anything. It's like they were going for something different, and it really didn't work. (To me) Just wondering if there was anything weird going on that anyone knew about, or if it's just my imagination. Oh well, this is my third time watching the show all the way through, including when it first aired (I watched since the pilot originally aired, so I've been in love since the beginning), and I'm loving the hell out if it still. It really does hold up, and some places I like even more this time through. I never cared much for the Shareef plot before, but I'm finding it enthralling this time around. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Aug 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The official explanation which was never really mentioned in the show but popped up in stories in weird places like alternate history mags and in depth profiles was that the show timeline split from our reality in 1974. IIRC it was something along the lines of that Nixon resigned in The West Wing universe before Ford was confirmed as VP, and that Congress ordered a presidential election in 1974 for a new full four year term at the wishes of Acting President Carl Albert, which then knocked off the succeeding cycles by two years. This would probably be constitutional in real life, but since we've never had a full Acting President succeed there's no real precedent. jeffersonlives posted:Don't ask me how to explain the full year gap including a midterm election that happens in season five, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I thought Donna said they were voting for Ritchie? Stackhouse was having trouble getting on the ballot in a bunch of states, wasn't he? That's what confuses me the most about that episode. The choice shouldn't really be Ritchie over Bartlett. It would be Ritchie over the other Republicans, and Bartlett over Stackhouse (if Stackhouse is even on that ballot). So I guess by "winning" they mean people choosing to take the Dem primary over the Republican primary, but honestly, if you're not already a Democrat, who would do that? You'd be throwing your vote away. The whole thing doesn't make much sense, and would work better if it was some random straw poll in a small town that gets national notice for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Most of season five has the characters acting like pod people. It gets better as season six progresses, especially for Leo post-heart attack and Josh post-Santos. Of all the plots in the show's run, the firing of Leo, and Leo's ensuing heart attack, is my least favorite plot. It's like for a while characters start acting completely against type, Leo has a heart attack and is replaced by C.J. of all people. I really hate it. Luckily, season 6 recovers wonderfully, like you said, once it gets into the campaign. But holy poo poo do I hate the beginning of season 6.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:It's really only the first three episodes that are problematic. Liftoff is great and after that the campaign stories and new characters start kicking in. Yeah, starting with Liftoff it starts to work. I just have a hard time with those first 3 episodes being, in my opinion, terrible. Also, if you were to ask me while Leo was still CoS who would be the best option to replace him, C.J. would have been at the end of the list, after Josh, Toby, and "outside hire". In fact, most of the staffing decisions in season 6 don't make a lot of sense. Toby needed Will to come on in season 4 because he was going to have too much to do, but for all of season 6 there's no Deputy Communications Director (unless Annabeth was filling in there), and for a while there's no Deputy CoS. Also, Toby is acting as both Communications Director and Press Secretary. They seem so ridiculously understaffed at the senior staff level, I'm not sure how they function. I mean, it sure seemed like Toby, Josh, C.J., Leo, and Sam always had full time jobs. Now everyone seems to be pulling double duty. I guess junior staff might have stepped up responsibilities. I'm on season 6 in my rewatch, so I don't remember how this goes in season 7, but I think it gets worse, with Will being Communications Director / Press Secretary, and Leo taking Annabeth away. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Aug 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
myron_cope posted:Is there any explanation of why the look of the show changes? Is it just due to all the shakeup with Sorkin leaving and the other EP leaving (Schlamme?) or new directors or what? I first noticed it in S3's "game on" (the debate episode), it turns into some weird shaky-cam close-up fest. Actually I can't remember if it happens for the rest of the series or not but I know it happens in the whole kidnapping and then the shutdown episodes. Maybe I'm the only who notices/cares? Keep in mind that for "Game On", Sorkin and Schlamme were both still there. They left after season 4.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Not to mention Stephen Root (aka Gordon from Dodgeball, Milton from Office Space, and Bill from King of the Hill) That's Jimmy James from Newsradio in the post you quoted.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
Bown posted:Matthew Perry is Sorkin, the female lead is Kristen Chenoweth. I've always heard this, but I'm curious, when did they work together? And is it just some weird coincidence that Kristen Chenoweth was on The West Wing, but not until Sorkin left?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
scarymonkey posted:Yep, this explains it all: Thanks for that. It's great, and only adds to my appreciation of Chenoweth. Apparently, she's awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 15:15
|
|
|
Mandoira posted:This is off-topic but I didn't want to make a thread for it and I figured if any viewers may have checked it out they'd be here. Donald Sutherland is a lot of fun to watch in it, but other than him it's worthless. He's the only one who seems to be trying at all, and the scripts were just boring.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ drat you.hypocrite lecteur posted:Why did Moira Kelly end up leaving the west wing? Was it just because she sucked? According to this, which should hardly count as a definitive anything, she and Aaron Sorkin both decided her character had run it's course, and Donna was a better foil for Josh. Which sounds like bullshit, but I can see Aaron Sorkin thinking that. Just not Moira Kelley agreeing. I've also heard she didn't test well with focus groups, and Donna did. Donna was made a regular in the second season, so it would make sense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Yeah, and they're awesome. You can check out a screenshot from them I posted on page one of the thread. They are the only place I know that has season one in widescreen. It was never shown on TV or released on DVD in widescreen. Since season 1 was never aired in widescreen, I assume they shot it with full screen in mind. Watching it in widescreen, are there any screw ups in the edges of the screen they didn't bother cutting out since they were showing in full screen? Boom mikes or anything like that? Is it awkward watching it in widescreen when that's not how they shot it? Is it basically everything crowded in the middle, with useless stuff on the edges? (Please note I have been a huge proponent of widescreen since before widescreen TVs became the norm. Been defending black bars for years. I'm just curious how it works here, when they shot it without thinking it would ever be in widescreen.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:Season 6 is pretty shaky in places. Season 1 and Season 6 are the only seasons where I will actually skip episodes What do you skip in season 1?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Episode? The Dogs of War, season 5, episode 2. Wikipedia posted:Josh confronts one of Walken's staff about the Republicans apparently testing sound bites for future elections. The Republican staffer indicates that Bartlet's sacrifice (resigning his office to an opposing party's leader) shows a tremendous amount of patriotism and that only someone playing politics would think the Republicans were going to dishonor that sacrifice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
Chamberk posted:Just bought seasons 6 and 7 off Amazon - the seasons are going for about 16 apiece! Will is never enjoyable. In season 6 he becomes a more important character, but rather annoying. In season 7, he's barely present, outside a handful of episodes. So that's good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:Yeah I've watched the entire series at least 3 times now (Season 1-4 more than that), and the show I want to watch is CJ being flustered, The President and Charlie trading quips and being snarky, Donna getting the best of Josh at every exchange, Leo looking at you sternly until you realize you just TMI'd and Toby being Yeah, when it comes right down to it, you're absolutely right. The campaign stuff in seasons 6 and 7 are a very good show, but it's not The West WingTM to me anymore. I love watching it, but when I talk about how much I love The West Wing, I'm always thinking about the first 4 seasons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 16:28
|
|
and yelling. Also Ainsley > *
|
BklynBruzer posted:I don't think anyone ever actually told him that, he genuinely thought that the White House had picked Russell as VP because they saw something in him. But he and Toby wrote that joke speech about how terrible he is, how mediocre and all that (the speech that accidentally ended up on the teleprompter). So Will knew he was an idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Oliver Babish is better than Lionel Tribbey. He's got a big hammer. I loved Tribbey, but this is one of my all time favorite West Wing moments. Thanks for posting it. Joementum posted:I'm really curious what the 3rd Amendment implications were in the bill Babish is referencing in that clip. Not often that Congress treats into that territory. A friend of mine who is a lawyer jokes that Law & Order always goes into 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendment cases, and all he really wants is a episode focusing on the 3rd. "Let's get Jack McCoy arguing against the quartering of troops!" And now it'll never happen. "It was a tentpole!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Never say never! Maybe Sorkin will focus an episode of Newsroom on this. Ha! For some reason I failed to make the connection with Newsroom. Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
The SARS Volta posted:I'm bumping this (although nearly not as much as I thought) because I've ran through some of the later episodes recently. I always understood the criticisms of the show post-Sorkin, but I also tacked it up a bit to the show being creatively bankrupt. And, hell, Jonathan Wells West Wing is still better than 95% of television programming ever produced. Season 5 was a mess from the start, no doubt about that. From what I've read, Sorkin had a plan for the kidnapping, but once he left NBC wasn't legally allowed to use any of his story outlines. Which resulted in the horrible start to the season. (I probably read this in this very thread, so sorry for the low info retread.) The rest of the season was incredibly inconsistent, with great episodes (Shutdown, The Supremes) mixed in with some of the worst stuff the show has ever produced (I sometimes feel like punching John Wells for making me watch Access). It took them a while to find their way post-Sorkin, which is somewhat understandable. At least seasons 6-7 recovered.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
king of no pants posted:This is a true fact. The opening of 17 People still gives me chills when I watch it. Toby, you magnificent balding bastard. It's such a quiet episode compared to others, but I love 17 People. It's so powerful, and at times terrifying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
James R posted:Edit: My second favourite Abbey and Jed moment is when she changes his alarm call and the banter between them is amazing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7xabYpMU1A That's a good clip, but it demonstrates a weird directing style that started in...maybe the 3rd, maybe the 4th season, where some episodes were shot in a way that seems to hide the main action in any way possible. This clip is another example. Watch when Josh answers the door, and you just see Amy through a reflection, and Josh not at all. As the clip continues, you get lots of shots of the backs of people's head, and the camera having the television as the main focus of the shot, or Josh in the background through a door...I don't know, it's hard to explain, but these two scenes are examples of what was, to me, a very strange shooting style that started around 3rd or 4th season, but only for some episodes. Amy I crazy, or is anyone seeing what I am?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I think it's supposed to be a caricature of Laura Ingraham. Close, but not quite. Dr. Laura Schlessinger edit: My God that video is incredible. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 17:39 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:John Hoynes resigned in the previous episode because he leaked a bunch of information which resulted in an embarrassing tell all book. It's a really good episode, you should go out of your way. Matthew Perry really surprises me - I think of him as the 4th or 5th funniest cast member of a decent sitcom, so to see that kind of range was unexpected. Not disagreeing with your post for the most part, but I think you're the first person I've met who didn't think Perry was the funniest person on Friends. Even people I know who didn't like Friends usually qualify it with, "Except Chandler. He was funny." Sorry, just had to mention that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Based almost solely on recommendations from this thread, I decided to try Sports Night for the first time, since both seasons are on Netflix. And holy poo poo it's good. Like, really good. Characters are great, chemistry is spot on, and the writing is exactly the Sorkin fix I need. (Newsroom is good, but once a week, so not enough.) I'm kind of mad at myself for not watching this when it was on. The laugh track though. drat is this bad. So out of place. But what's funny is that you can tell they're slowly phasing it out. Each episode it's used less and less, and when it's used the volume on it is slowly going down. Hell, there's one or two episodes when it's not used at all, but is back one episode later. Also, am I wrong, or is there a MASH type thing where, when they're actually broadcasting, there's never a laugh track? Or have I just not noticed it? Anyway, the way they use laugh track is weird, is what I'm trying to say. But it's a great show, I love it. I'm only sad it's not going to take me much time to work through all 45 half hour episodes. Also, Robert Guillaume is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I don't mind 90 Miles Away, it's just not that interesting. It's about Leo going to Cuba to try to reopen relations and also about his past with Kate Harper which he doesn't remember because he was drunk. Also there's a subplot about Charlie and termites, so yeah. I watch Slow News Day on my rewatches, but just because it's such a weird episode. But I skip Access, because I really hate that one. Maybe it's just because it comes right after The Supremes, which made me think that maybe season 5 would get back on track, and then Access ruins my hopes. But I really can't stand that one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I have never once understood skipping parts of a serial in any medium. People on the internet always talk about skipping chapters in books and stuff. It baffles me, other than the 9/11 episode there isn't a single self-contained episode in the entire show. Skipping stuff on re-watches is completely understandable, but why would you willfully ignore parts of the story? Because we watch a television show to be entertained. If you're watching seven seasons, you want an episode to A) entertain you or, failing that, B) provide necessary background information for a future episode which will entertain you. If there is an episode that is universally accepted to be not entertaining at all, and doesn't help you understand or appreciate future episodes, I can see wanting to skip it. Granted, I'm not advocating skipping any West Wing episodes, I'm just saying I can understand the reasoning. "On this episode of Deep Space 9, Jake and Nog go on a double date!" "Uuuuggggghhh." (Please don't start a DS9 holy war, it's just the first thing that came to mind, the rest of that episode may have been fantastic, I can't remember.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Boomentum posted:She left after a scandal involving toe sucking and is now a pundit on a right wing news channel. Mandy has really let herself go.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Welp, there goes any chance I have of getting work done today.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
escape artist posted:I just can't push myself through the earlier stages of Season 2, which isn't to say they are bad... oh, on the contrary... But they still feel like they're just spinning their wheels until they get to that amazing scene in the Season 2 finale (which I've also never seen). Season 2 is probably my favorite season in the whole show. The scene in the finale I assume you're talking about is indeed amazing, but there's so much amazing stuff in season 2 to enjoy until you get there. The Christmas episode, Noel, is my favorite episode of the entire show, and won Bradley Whitford his Emmy. Just enjoy the ride. The finale is so good because of all the build up through the whole season.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I finished season 6 tonight. Santos and Vinick both own pretty hard. Leo as the VP candidate seemed a bit contrived though. I agreed with what you posted in the spoiler when I first saw it. But don't worry, season 7 will make you feel better. There's a couple episodes that address this very point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Yeah, House of Cards is good, in an entirely different way. The West Wing makes me wish I had gone into politics. House of Cards makes me glad I didn't. Both are amazing shows, for different reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
brylcreem posted:Wouldn't the Commerce Clause prevent that ban? I admit the Commerce Clause confuses me sometimes, but I think that would only come into play if New Hampshire banned buying coffee cream from another state and using it in New Hampshire. The Commerce Clause says Congress can regulate commerce among the states, so Interstate Commerce. If New Hampshire were to ban all coffee cream while in their state, that doesn't really get into Interstate Commerce. But I could be way off base. Also, interpretation could very well have changed with a ruling by the Supreme Court I'm unfamiliar with. I'm no lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
LordPants posted:But all the characters in newsrooms are walking Sorkin Erections (Sorkections?) who are perfect at the job, unless, they're a woman in which case they're useless. No, everyone in the Newsroom thread keeps saying that in a general sense, but it also doesn't match what they're complaining about specifically. They say all the women are stupid, yet can't stop talking about how much Sloan kicks rear end and is the best written character. And they say all the men are perfect, yet won't stop talking about how annoying it is to watch Jim screw up so much. All the characters are flawed in their own way. The only character that's portrayed as "perfect" (but clearly isn't) is Will, but since he's the host of the show, and is generally acknowledged to be an egotistical rear end, that's kind of understandable from a narrative point of view. Don screws up just as much as MacKenzie does, and MacKenzie is good at her job just as often as Don (just as an example, since they both play producers of their respective shows on the show). But when she does it, that thread starts screaming sexism. Sorry, not trying to say it's as good as The West Wing, because it's not, and I do apologize for continuing this derail, but that thread is just the worst place to be if you don't believe The Newsroom is "the most sexist show in the history of television", and that that point is a proven verifiable fact. It has it's moments, like literally all of television, but it's not a standard bearer for sexism on television like that thread makes it out to be. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Aug 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
In case anyone missed it. http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/allison-janney-performed-the-jackal-on-the-arsenio-hall-show Marley Wants More posted:You know you're a true fan when instead of just thinking the "Jackal" scene was dumb, you think there must be something wrong with you because you think it was dumb. It's a thing Allison Janney just kind of does in real life. She would do it occasionally on set, so they worked in into the show. Yeah, it's strange, no doubt, but I can't help but laugh.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
njbeachbum posted:Is that after she cuts off his tie? Yeah, right before he steps onto stage. The entire scene is fantastic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Josh belonged with Joey Lucas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not really what I'd call a good episode, but I forgive it because it was a crazy time just after 9/11. It's an interesting character study, and an interesting piece of TV history.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:The work Tommy Salami did on Sports Night is incredible. I had no idea that was one huge set and that they filmed in front of a studio audience. Wait, this isn't true, is it? There's no way there was a studio audience in most of those shots, there's no room/rooms clearly have 4 walls. And the laugh track in the first season was, I thought, added in post (possibly by showing the footage to an audience and recording the laughter). Plus it's gone by the second season. There's no way it was filmed in front of a studio audience. Unless that's the joke, in which case I'll shut up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 17:33
|
|