The West Wing: "Tell your friend POTUS he's got a funny name."

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > The West Wing: "Tell your friend POTUS he's got a funny name."

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

I had a few eps running last night, and should have stopped at one fewer. What a letdown to see the excellent 'The Supremes' (with Glenn Close and William Fichtner as justice nominees) followed by the worthless 'Access' (fake documentary of a day in CJ's life).

# ¿ Jul 11, 2011 16:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 10:31

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

FISHMANPET posted:

My favorite part about Access is how one of the deputy press secretaries shows up later (Donna takes his place on the Middle East trip).

The new players suddenly introduced in that episode were a bit jarring. Of course it's a given that there are many more people working behind the scenes of the west wing that we'd never meet, and the press office hasn't been the focus or fleshed out much, but after five years of a show that consists almost entirely of people striding around handing off envelopes, we would have caught a glimpse of people who interact with CJ directly and constantly.

Of course, that's just a minor complaint in a wholly lousy episode.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2011 17:18

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

The Gunslinger posted:

- I can't help but feel like Will is actually the worst main character on the show. I'm not sure what they could have done to fill the gulf Rob Lowe left but Will just seems poorly written and unnatural. When he tries to display any form of backbone with Toby I can't help but laugh. I liked the actor on Sports Night but he just didn't seem well suited to the role in WW, this seems backed up a bit by him being thrown all over the place on the show.

My only problem with how Will was handled is that his jump to the Russell staff seemed a bit out of character, in that he started out so idealistic he'd run a dead man's campaign to the bitter end, but shifted quickly to the cold pragmatism of getting in with the presumed nominee, no matter how little he believes in the guy.

As Russell's chief of staff, though, I thought he served a pretty nice role calling Toby out on his poo poo every once in a while, and he seemed as good a fit for general advising/writing as Lowe was. (I've been rewatching lately, but I'm still in early S6, and haven't seen 6/7 since they aired, so I don't recall any specifics on how his story eventually plays out.)

# ¿ Jul 20, 2011 15:44

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

myron_cope posted:

I am slightly confused about the chain of command in the West Wing. I get that Leo is the boss (whose boss is the president!), but from there I get confused. It would seem that Josh, as the Deputy CoS, would be his number two. But the way the series plays out it is as if Toby is higher up than Josh. I get that Sam is Toby's deputy, and CJ works for Toby (and thereby Sam?), but the Toby/Josh part is the one I don't get.

Org charts branch out, they're not a straight line. Josh and Toby both report to Leo, and neither report to each other. Likewise, Sam and CJ to Toby. (That said, in an environment that dynamic and fast-paced, the structure doesn't need to be all that rigid for day-to-day operations.)

# ¿ Aug 6, 2011 20:58

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Ur Getting Fatter posted:

I really liked his point about how, while the President was in a coma, there was a de-facto coup d'etat in the US with Leo and the military acting as sort of junta. That whole scene is really intense.

It was odd seeing young Leo in War Games last night (first time I've seen it, if you can believe that). Serious flashes of his future role when he starts shouting about 'getting someone on the damned phone before he kills 20 million people'.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2011 21:21

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

spe posted:

Whats the episode where Jed walks down the street, sits for a while, then turns around and walks back home?

508, Shutdown

# ¿ Oct 4, 2011 19:55

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Chamberk posted:

No, the worst character was that random assistant of Toby's during season 5. There was some sort of kerfuffle about her dressing too casual for the White House. That was pretty much all she did. And then she was gone.

I think the worst character had to be the star trek pin girl. The character herself, I don't care about, but her only purpose was that one interaction where Sorkin wrote his TWOP beef into the script with Josh's rant, and it was entirely out of place, tone, and character. That would have been too blatant a self-insertion for Studio 60, much less West Wing.

I always liked Pierce. Sure, he served little purpose in 90% of his episodes, but the way he irritated Josh with his mere presence was entertainment enough. He had a couple redeeming insights along the way, plus the time he gamed everyone to make Josh look like the hero while getting exactly what he wanted.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2011 18:11

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Superrodan posted:

Reading through this thread reminded me that the "Crime, boy I don't know" line never really made sense to me. I just can't imagine a reason that anyone would have to say it like that. Were they only implying he was stupid? Or that he didn't believe the story or something?

It really just seems like a line that makes no sense even in context of the character.

Ritchie is needling the president about his liberal, "soft-on-crime" position being perhaps responsible for things like secret service agents getting shot in convenience store robberies.

WoG fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Nov 12, 2011

# ¿ Nov 12, 2011 09:58

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

kingturnip posted:

It's odd. There's a lot of dialogue dedicated to how Bartlet gets through White House Counsels like cheap toilet paper and then Babish re-appears 6 years later, in the same job, without anyone commenting on it.

There's just Larroquette, briefly, then Babish for the rest of the series. He wasn't in every episode, no, but it's not like he was replaced then reinstated.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2011 06:01

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

FISHMANPET posted:

My fiancee pointed out that the first shot was a bit of a walk and talk, but they obviously couldn't pull it off for long, because most of the conversation was standing in front of his office.

I imagine P&R just has far less hallway set to play with than WW did

# ¿ Apr 20, 2012 14:42

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Charlie getting jacket-slapped was the best part.

# ¿ May 1, 2012 17:18

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

LordPants posted:

I'm not going to lie, I really really liked the last two seasons. Yes, it's a different show with a different tone, but I'll take seasons 6-7 of the West Wing any day of the week.

Yeah, it got good when the writers realized the only way to make a decent West Wing without Sorkin was to make a different show and call it 'West Wing'.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2012 03:07

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Josh Lyman posted:

Whoo boy, you'd love The Newsroom thread about a week ago.

I decided well before the premiere that no matter what happens with newsroom or what I think of it, I'm staying far, far away from that thread. Only terrible things can come from there.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2012 20:12

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Asiina posted:

Nah, Margaret's great.

She's weird as hell, but she's incredibly good at her job. We see that more when she with CJ than with Leo, since Leo has the insanity all under control.

She's efficient, and a great character, but I imagine he was talking about her spying and gossiping sides. It's a fair point, but it doesn't seem unrealistic that nobody says poo poo to the Chief of Staff about his decades-running assistant.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2012 18:21

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Delzuma posted:

I've got the big box set of the West Wing but I've never watched any of the commentaries, are they any good? Funny? The firefly ones are my high bar.

^ what they said, re: the WW commentaries, but if Firefly's your high bar, check out Mr. Show and Futurama.

# ¿ Dec 27, 2012 03:57

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

movax posted:

Started watching the show last night (first time ever), I understand the thread title now

That's such a lame bit. The idea that a law student in DC would never have heard that before...

# ¿ Feb 20, 2013 19:46

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

I'm drowning in irony here.

Thanks, Junior Sorkin Squad, for explaining to me, as if I didn't already know, how Sorkin likes to explain things to the audience, as if they didn't already know.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2013 21:42

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

MC Fruit Stripe posted:

Except 1, why would Josh be the one to let them know that the Republican president arrived, a little too specific, and 2, the man getting out of the car has the fullest head of brown hair you'll ever see.

1: Josh was already there before the motorcade, and only alerted them as the motorcade was pulling up, which anyone out front would have noticed, and 2: no, it's edited very carefully to not reveal his head in any way.

Look, I'm not saying the plan was ever to have Vinick win or anything like that, but it's obvious that that scene was crafted to keep it ambiguous, so any claim that it was 'revealed' there, one way or the other, is flat-out wrong.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2013 17:51

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

thrawn527 posted:

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.

I'm not going near that thread, either, but don't pretend they're the only ones calling out the show's obvious imbalance. The men don't break down into hysterics at every turn, and need the nearest woman to shake some sense back into them. Jim's "screw-ups" involve sticking to his principles to a fault, and being too gentlemanly; Maggie's involve screaming at strangers and breaking down every other episode. I just watched the newest one last night, and the moment they showed MacKenzie behind the wheel (looking exasperated), my immediate reaction was, "ugh, what's she going to crash into?" Ten seconds later: garbage cans.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2013 16:30

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Khablam posted:

My problem with the scene is it was massively overhyped. OK, so it's a given Sorkinism that characters endlessly repeat something ahead of revealing it's significance to the audience, but in relation to a performance it just boosts false expectations.
The best part about it is seeing Toby react to it.

I always saw it not as notable in and of itself, but just as one of those drunken party stories that gets told and retold until it's an event. I don't think they ever 'hype' it as anything else.

Josh Lyman posted:

I think I just don't like Joshua Malina as an actor. I don't like his face and I don't like his voice.

I hope you're actually Brad Whitford, and this is part of their ongoing 'feud', because otherwise, you're just a foolish man.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2013 18:02

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

*sigh*

I resisted this as long as I could, but now I'm already 4 eps into the show (again) and podcast within the first 24 hrs...

At least once I catch up it will be a fairly small weekly time commitment.

# ¿ May 18, 2016 17:31

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

Khablam posted:

If having heard the usual way Josh and Hrishi talk to one another / banter with guests, you still think that their comments are "churlish", you might be completely tone deaf.

^yep, this.

I understand this Donna/Ainsley theory perfectly fine, but like Hrishi said, it's not supported in the text. Sure, it's not directly DISproven, but come on, that's about 10 shades too subtle to be an intended plot thread.

WoG fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 16:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 10:31

WoG: Jul 13, 2004

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 thought it was a reference to Clinton only ever winning a plurality of the popular vote, not losing it outright.

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

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > The West Wing: "Tell your friend POTUS he's got a funny name."