And now The Newsroom....

[Australis]

Sorkin isn't as even with his female characters as he thinks he is. CJ was great, so was Mrs Bartlett and Mrs Landingham, but McKenzie McHale (really? Someone would name their kid that?) is so neurotic, obsessing stupidly over McAvoy, that it gets in the way.

Still, I love the show, and I punched the air on the line "The Tea Party is the American Taliban" Having watched Bachmann's performance in the last few days, damn straight!

 

[HaventGotALife]

The fact that he calls himself a conservative and yet feels left behind by 'his' party that has run off the rails pandering to a few key demographics is part of the drama.

The problem is that it's really poorly presented on the show because, based off of what we've seen, Will is not really a conservative. On almost every issue that the show has addressed, from gay marriage to gun control, from social security to free-market economics, Will has not expressed traditional conservative points of view. The sole conservative value he was shown to hold is that he's pro-life, and that was a single line thrown out there in an episode about an entirely different subject. In the same episode he revealed that the reason he is a Republican is that he grew up in a rural area where everyone is a Republican and that's all he knew. I hate the overuse of the RINO label as much as anyone, but Will really does come across as a Republican in name only.

Let's be honest here, the reason why Will is a Republican is that Aaron Sorkin wanted to go after the Tea Party and he felt that having the main character be a Republican would act as a shield from the potential criticism of the show's liberal leanings. But he did a really poor job of portraying Will as a conservative, it's one of the leading criticisms of the show, and it's a good sign that Sorkin is trying to address that in season 2.

I think the show hasn't touched on a number of issues. The first, is the role of government in our lives. The second is the role of business in our lives. He hasn't gone into debates about "truther-ism" or touched Obamacare.

The show has talked about the TEA Party, and if they are really true conservatives. And while it may have not gotten much media coverage, there is a struggle within the Republican ranks over the role of the TEA Party. That was touched on.

It's common sense to ask "why weren't the rigs inspected" in the first episode. And if he's not aligned with the TEA Party, then he wouldn't be for ending worker's rights.

As for Mackenzie, I think the beginning of the show shows her to be the idealist. She is the one who is pushing Will. And as the series progresses, she becomes more unraveled because of her feelings for Will. That's a mistake and why I want them to resolve this issue fast in Season 2. It's robbing us from seeing her as a strong female character. At first, she was. Until she sent that email. She's the one who is in charge.

 

[Gaith]

When will Aaron just go back to writing fact-based (albeit highly subjective) movies?!

 

[bigdaddy]

Many new age Republicans are for gay marriage, actual fair taxes, government that serves the people when needed.

The thing is the crazy assholes get in the way of that, but that's another topic. But Sorkin can't really write for Republicans too well. They sometimes come off OK, but normally they don't feel like real people.

 

[Guy Gardener]

He finds it difficult to comprehend how the opposing point of view exists.

It's good vs. evil to Sorkin.

The problem is the republicans and democrats (who survive) will both commit to the beliefs which their polling instructs them to, so it really doesn't mean anything "real" to be a republican or a democrat. The parties evolve to cater to the beliefs of the mob they feed off. If the parties ignore evolution and stick to their manifesto if it's in conflict with their base, no mater how many months, years or decades old that manifesto is, they will fail.

In truth it's not good vs. evil, it's bland vs. bland.

 

[Venardhi]

Some characteristics have to be tailored to the audience in order to make him sympathetic though. Vinick on The West Wing worked so well because he was an 'old school' moderate Republican from a liberal state and you could really see moderate and even some liberal people wanting to vote for him. Hell, I actually wanted him to win.

 

[Guy Gardener]

He should have won.

That would have been a fantastic ending.

Camelot has fallen.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Not only did I want Vinnick to win, I wanted to watch a couple of seasons of Vinnick's The West Wing.

 

[MacLeod]

Well it might have been nice to see a season or more of The West Wing, with the Santos Administration.

 

[Guy Gardener]

DAMN YOU FRINGE MIRROR UNIVERSE!

Seriously though?

They don't have to get the band back together again.

Aaron with a completely new cast.

Is John Wells talented?

After I figured out that he stole the West Wing, I started seeing his name everywhere. I had to wonder if he was truly creative of if John was like Hannibal Lecter just skinning people and wearing their skin a lot.

It's not like they've junked the sets fo... Are there a lot of fake Oval offices in Burbank, or do the presidentially shows all share?

I'm really getting off on Scandal.

 

[bigdaddy]

Some characteristics have to be tailored to the audience in order to make him sympathetic though. Vinick on The West Wing worked so well because he was an 'old school' moderate Republican from a liberal state and you could really see moderate and even some liberal people wanting to vote for him. Hell, I actually wanted him to win.

And that character was created years after Sorkin left the show. So what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Marten]

Wasn't Vinnick supposed to win, but after McGarry died they felt that was a little too harsh? I've read that somewhere, at least.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I trying to imagine this.

Chenney dies in 2007, so America says fuck term limitations, give George another 4 years.

 

[TheGodBen]

Vinick is a great example of a moderate conservative character of the sort that Will McAvoy is supposed to be. He's pro-choice and non-religious, but he still has solid conservative credentials in other areas, as evidenced by the positions he presented in the debate episode. But as bigdaddy said, Vinick showed up years after Sorkin left the show, and he was part of an effort by the new writers to challenge The West Wing's (understandable) liberal bias.

Wasn't Vinnick supposed to win, but after McGarry died they felt that was a little too harsh? I've read that somewhere, at least.

There are conflicting stories on the matter. Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr. claims that Vinick was originally supposed to win but when John Spencer died they changed it. John Wells, showrunner and co-writer of the election episode, claims that the Santos victory was in the original script for the episode before John Spencer died and that the changes to the episode were purely to include Leo's death.

 

[bigdaddy]

John Wells also claims that they never had a magical missing year between the end of season 5 and the beginning of season 6, when they did and anyone with ears nows that they did.

 

[TheGodBen]

''Magical missing year?'' Did the Year Five season ender or Year Six's opening episode hint at missing material? Or is this the period when Sorkin actually left?

Did you ever wonder why the primaries for the next presidential election occur only two years after Bartlet's re-election? That's the missing year.

The show never mentions the missing year, and there's no place that it could possibly fit in the storyline, that's why it's so magical. The upcoming 2004 midterm elections are mentioned towards the end of season 5, but towards the start of season 6 those elections are referred as having happened a year prior. That suggests that the Gaza crisis lasted a full year, but that makes absolutely no sense.

When asked about it in an interview once, John Wells attempted a Jedi mind trick and claimed that there was no missing year and that The West Wing began one and a half years into Bartlet's presidency. This is flatly contradicted by what the characters say in season 1 and the fact that Bartlet's re-election took place in season 4. So John Wells was either lying in that interview to deflect from the hames he made of the timeline, or he genuinely had no idea what was going on on his own show.

 

[bigdaddy]

''Magical missing year?'' Did the Year Five season ender or Year Six's opening episode hint at missing material? Or is this the period when Sorkin actually left?

Sorkin left after season 4.

Season 5 ended with a bombing, Josh in the episode talks about the upcoming MID TERM elections.

Season 6 picks up only a few days later and Josh is talking about the presidential elections and how poorly the democrats did in the midterms.

I don't mind they skip a year because a new direction was very much needed. But he refuses to admit to it, he comments on how the pilot was a year into the presidency. However it was only 8 months I think, and they caught up in time throughout the first 5 years.

 

[Guy Gardener]

They skipped a year on purpose, that's fine.

They lost a year because they forgot how to count to four, that's incompetence.

They Hid a year because they assumed the audience was too stupid to notice, that's degrading to you.

 

[bigdaddy]

The sad this is I think they weren't really paying attention, and did it, then tried to hide it after people realized the year was missing.

 

[Gaith]

The sad this is I think they weren't really paying attention, and did it, then tried to hide it after people realized the year was missing.

As a former Senator from Massachussetts might say...