Has everyone seen this thing already?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v52FLMOPSig[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v52FLMOPSig[/yt]
The West Wing now on Netflix
- Thread starter Brolan
- Start date
I love this ad!
I can see that she won, so hopefully we will more of the West Wing cast in her relections.
I can see that she won, so hopefully we will more of the West Wing cast in her relections.
Sorry, I watched the whole series when it was on the air and have all but the 7th season on DVD. When did they skip a year to go right into the election?
The first election happened before the first season. Bartlett's re-election happened in season 3. So you add 4 years for his second term which brings us to the 7th season.
But if it hadn't been for Martin Sheen's performance in the pilot, Bartlet may have been a bit character.
Considering Josh was created with Whitford in mind for the role, I'd say there's a good chance.
Bartlet's re-election happened in the fourth season (Election Night) and it was stated quite clearly in the first season that he had been in office for less than a year.
The time jump both does and does not exist. Some time between the fifth and sixth seasons time jumps ahead one year to facilitate the planned election storyline, but there's no possible place in the show where a time jump would fit as the Gaza crisis clearly didn't last a whole year. Towards the end of the fifth season they are preparing for the 2004 midterm elections, yet at the start of the sixth season they are gearing up for the 2006 primaries. It's a massive plot hole, an entire year inexplicably disappeared, but since it prevented another rocky season like the fifth most fans just go along with it.
Exactly. In the season 5 finale Josh is talking to some people about the midterm elections. In the beginning of the 6th season, which is just a few days later, Josh is talking about who should run for president in the next election.
If they planned ahead at all they could have just said season 5 took up two years, however the writers still deny there was ever a whole in the timeline. Even when there clearly is, and when there is the storyline of Toby's brother's death.
Oh Gods, I would have warned you never to have watched that mess.
I think I'm one of the few people who likes that episode. I was in high school when 9/11 happened, and I didn't know much of the background of terrorism. It was a god-send for me to have these characters that I liked and respected explain things to me so well. It was especially good because at that point, no one anywhere seemed to be able to sort things out very well.
I was in high school too, and watched the episode as it aired and I hated it. You are one of the few that like it. It was horribly received by pretty much everyone for being heavy handed and the characters acting weird.
People! It's not an episode; it's a non-canon "play".
Its major flaws are twofold: one, it's simply not as anywhere near sophisticated as the show and the show's audience. It reminded us not to scapegoat brown people. Those tuning in didn't need that lecture.
Second, it told no hard truths. Like the line about terrorism having a "100 percent failure rate" - it struck me as profound and true enough at the time, but I can't take it seriously anymore. Didn't the Nazis, Saddam's Baathists, the Taliban and many others take power after terrorist acts? Also, there was such thing as extremist Jewish terrorism in the run-up to the creation of the State of Israel aimed at getting the Brits out of the picture... which did subsequently happen. One can argue that this goal was achieved in spite of, and not with the help of, said violence, but it does complicate the picture. One-sentence soundbites are pretty much never helpful when it comes to history.
Or, consider this exchange:... Or Moscow, New York City, or any other major city during the Cold War, when nuclear holocaust almost happened several times over due in large part to the military-industrial complex chestbursting out of the US.
Or, if you want to keep it current to 2001, how about Pakistan, where extremist Islamic terrorists routinely try to destabilize the government. I'm pretty certain that, even before Iraq's civil war broke out, far more civilian Muslims routinely died as a result of such terror than either civilian or military Israelis did. I&A-Sam's answer wasn't wrong per se, but it did not-so-subtly promote the very "us vs. them" mentality the whole I&A-Leo subplot was arguing against.
I'm not trying to start political/historical debate(s) here. I'm only saying that The West Wing was always a fantasy in the sense that corporate lobbying and influence was just about never felt, and that the "play" Isaac and Ishmael was even less grounded than the series itself, while acting as if it were more so.
Its major flaws are twofold: one, it's simply not as anywhere near sophisticated as the show and the show's audience. It reminded us not to scapegoat brown people. Those tuning in didn't need that lecture.
Second, it told no hard truths. Like the line about terrorism having a "100 percent failure rate" - it struck me as profound and true enough at the time, but I can't take it seriously anymore. Didn't the Nazis, Saddam's Baathists, the Taliban and many others take power after terrorist acts? Also, there was such thing as extremist Jewish terrorism in the run-up to the creation of the State of Israel aimed at getting the Brits out of the picture... which did subsequently happen. One can argue that this goal was achieved in spite of, and not with the help of, said violence, but it does complicate the picture. One-sentence soundbites are pretty much never helpful when it comes to history.
Or, consider this exchange:
GIRL 1: Well, what do you call a society that has to just live everyday with the idea that the pizza place you're eating in can just blow up without any warning?
SAM: Israel.
SAM: Israel.
Or, if you want to keep it current to 2001, how about Pakistan, where extremist Islamic terrorists routinely try to destabilize the government. I'm pretty certain that, even before Iraq's civil war broke out, far more civilian Muslims routinely died as a result of such terror than either civilian or military Israelis did. I&A-Sam's answer wasn't wrong per se, but it did not-so-subtly promote the very "us vs. them" mentality the whole I&A-Leo subplot was arguing against.
I'm not trying to start political/historical debate(s) here. I'm only saying that The West Wing was always a fantasy in the sense that corporate lobbying and influence was just about never felt, and that the "play" Isaac and Ishmael was even less grounded than the series itself, while acting as if it were more so.
We named our daughter Ainsley, in part because of the West Wing character. So no, its not wrong. Funny enough she's an adorable little blonde girl who talks fast and thinks faster.
*coughBUMPcough* Whoops, my hand accidentally hit the Reply button. Oh, well.
I recently started watching The West Wing on Netflix, and I think it's safe to say I'm in love. And I'm only in the second season. I'm not usually crazy about political dramas, but the writing is so amazing and the characters are so darned LOVABLE, I can't seem to stop watching. (Although I can't say I miss Mandy at all.) I particularly love C.J. She is without a doubt one of the best female characters on any tv show ever.
Also, I'm pretty sure Toby is my fictional soul mate. Not sure what that says about me.
I recently started watching The West Wing on Netflix, and I think it's safe to say I'm in love. And I'm only in the second season. I'm not usually crazy about political dramas, but the writing is so amazing and the characters are so darned LOVABLE, I can't seem to stop watching. (Although I can't say I miss Mandy at all.) I particularly love C.J. She is without a doubt one of the best female characters on any tv show ever.
Also, I'm pretty sure Toby is my fictional soul mate. Not sure what that says about me.
Similar threads
