Vote for why you think it jumped
Never Jumped
Exit...Stage Left (Sorkin and Schlamme)
The LEFT wing
Zoey is kidnapped
A Very Special...(Issac and Ishmael)
Shark Bytes
I won't weigh in on the political, but the show jumped when, in a show purportedly about reality some rather ridiculous unreal things started taking place. I'm aware of the need for artistic license to make things fit into a dramatic scheme (otherwise those CSI shows would be unwatchable). But up to a point. Like when they solved Mid East peace on the basketball court. There they are, passing it around and spitting out ideas at Camp David. And who? The Secretary of State, ambassadors? Nope, just them, "the Gang". Speechwriters, PR, Chief of Staff and I think that guy Charlie, an intern. Right, because that's what seasoned foreign diplomats would like to see when those nasty problems come up. Just like Beverly Hills 90210. Sanchez needs a VP. Who? A senator, a popular governor, somebody most would be familiar with, with a regional strategy in mind? No way, when the Chief of Staff that nobody's heard about and who just had a heart attack is available! He's one of "the Gang"(yay!). Or how about the Pres. stepping aside for the Republican Speaker of the House during a crisis and then coming back with not a hint of political fallout and everyone, including the GOP Speaker just thinking "Gee, what an honorable guy Bartlett is!" 'Cause Clinton did that with Gingrich and then the Repubs just forgot all about that impeachment thing! It's true, I swear! And people have already mentioned CJ. This kind of stuff was a massive misreading of the show's audience. People who would watch a political show like WW would be more likely to be informed about the stuff and less likely to fall for such childish manipulation. Yet we were all treated like we were stupid. Yes, this was one shark jump that trancended politics.
C.J. becoming chief of staff is probably the most obsurd thing that could have happened on that show.
West wing was an excellent show! just finished working my way through the whole series and loved it! zoe being kidnapped was a bit over done but other than that i really felt that it was made really well. the loss of leo was heartbreaking and the donna and josh relationship was always comming but i still loved it when they evenutally came together same with danny and CJ.
Martin Sheen was a great actor in this show a little self righteous but not enough to be annoying. And charlie!
...
you know what lets cut this short by saying that just about every character was great! sam was alright but wasnt missed when he left. and toby leaving was never going to end well.
but what do you know there was a typo in the constitution good work toby.
sorry ranting but love the show.
Martin Sheen was a great actor in this show a little self righteous but not enough to be annoying. And charlie!
...
you know what lets cut this short by saying that just about every character was great! sam was alright but wasnt missed when he left. and toby leaving was never going to end well.
but what do you know there was a typo in the constitution good work toby.
sorry ranting but love the show.
It jump when the show lost it's main star Rob Lowe, Arron Sorkin left. And john wells made martin sheens role bigger.
The Show jumped the shark when Sorkin left.
I'm not saying there weren't any good episodes after the departure of Sorkin and Schlamme, but the entire show changed. Sorkin almost singlehandedly wrote the first four seasons (AMAZING!), so naturally the show would shift gears when he left - and shift gears it did, under John Wells' control.
To put it simply, the show wasn't fun anymore. It was drama, drama, drama. Again, some of the episodes were great, but Sorkin has the rare ability to balance the humour and drama.
Great show, and once it changed around season 6 to focus on the primaries, it hit its stride...but boy, it sure wasn't the west wing that one four straight emmys.
I'm not saying there weren't any good episodes after the departure of Sorkin and Schlamme, but the entire show changed. Sorkin almost singlehandedly wrote the first four seasons (AMAZING!), so naturally the show would shift gears when he left - and shift gears it did, under John Wells' control.
To put it simply, the show wasn't fun anymore. It was drama, drama, drama. Again, some of the episodes were great, but Sorkin has the rare ability to balance the humour and drama.
Great show, and once it changed around season 6 to focus on the primaries, it hit its stride...but boy, it sure wasn't the west wing that one four straight emmys.
The show really jumped the shark when it changed how they were going to end the election of Arnold Vinnick winning the election to having Matt Santos win, because of the show getting the can, and because John Spence died. I feel the show really lost it self in that last season with everything really aiming toward a Vinnick win, until word came down that the show would not be picked up for another season then tried to make Vinnick out to be totally different as if he was a radical right wing Republican and not a Moderate. Most of us could of seen it coming that the real ending was to be Vinnick winning since most of the cast was set for other projects like Studio 60, Cane, ect.
West Wing center-right? Kudos to your drug dealer. He's obviously got some superior product. Your whole post smacks of the smarmy and ignorant arrogance that comes from ivory-tower marxists. It's rather easy to refute your points but this is only a board about an obnoxious show that is thankfully long gone. Keep on huffin'...
The West Wing is not leftist- but center-right in its politics- the same general bias shared by the mainstream media (the reactionary right overt-propaganda machine of Fox news is another matter). Further this center-right mainstream is not presented as having made up its mind necessarily, but constrains debate within certain center-right parameters that the West Wing clearly fell within. The right wing reactionaries should just get over that the writers of the West Wing tended to be towards the left part of this center-right media consensus.
With the exception of the obviously idiotic portrayal of actual leftists (anti-globalization movement, for example), as an actual leftist I found the show quite enjoyable once I realized it was not about politics but was a monarchist drama (please note- monarchism is an ideology of the right- not the left). If only the people and the interest groups would allow the king, I mean president, to bring us enlightened policies, then the world would be saved- that was the ideology of the show.
The fanciful situations depicted in the West Wing were only loosely based in reality and have little to do with the political realities of the world. Taken as Shakespearean fantasy, the show is quite entertaining. But I guess that is a standard quality of right-wing (fascist) thinking- anything that does not explicitly agree with your narrow point of view must be propaganda aimed at destroying you.
The West Wing is not particularly good propaganda, but it was consistently well written and entertaining, as long as everyone remembers it took place in a center-right fantasy world where your eight grade civics book is an accurate and complete picture of the world.
With the exception of the obviously idiotic portrayal of actual leftists (anti-globalization movement, for example), as an actual leftist I found the show quite enjoyable once I realized it was not about politics but was a monarchist drama (please note- monarchism is an ideology of the right- not the left). If only the people and the interest groups would allow the king, I mean president, to bring us enlightened policies, then the world would be saved- that was the ideology of the show.
The fanciful situations depicted in the West Wing were only loosely based in reality and have little to do with the political realities of the world. Taken as Shakespearean fantasy, the show is quite entertaining. But I guess that is a standard quality of right-wing (fascist) thinking- anything that does not explicitly agree with your narrow point of view must be propaganda aimed at destroying you.
The West Wing is not particularly good propaganda, but it was consistently well written and entertaining, as long as everyone remembers it took place in a center-right fantasy world where your eight grade civics book is an accurate and complete picture of the world.
Emily,
Interesting post. Other than agreeing with him I have no right to speak for Brian, but I´ll add my own thoughts.
That WW is drama and followed the conventions thereof is not questioned. But that by definition it is a show about politics vaults it out of the realm of art, the abstracting of the human condition in search of insights about it, and into reality itself, as an actor in that reality, i.e. propaganda. While it is axiomatic to say that everything is biased, as you say of MASH etc., propaganda is organized bias for the purpose of altering an outcome. I do not object to a TV show injecting itself into politics. That´s free expression. What I do object to is the pervasive deceit that these shows propagate and the leftist monoculture that the entertainment industry and the "news" industry, which have merged, have become. It is one thing to write a drama that says "We believe this..." and present an honest exploration of the issue. It is quite another to write a drama which ignores the reality of the issue by lying and omission and then have a news report on a supposedly hard news source use exactly the same narrative. This is the device of Orwellian totalitarianism, for all dissenting point of view are written out of existence. There are tons of examples of this.
No, WW did not just try "to make some meaningful sense out of" government or politics. It had already made up its mind, and tried to psychologically coerce their point of view onto others, especially young people. All of these shows are not just entertainment. They are an attempt at a cultural coup. Ripped-from-the-Headlines, indeed.
Interesting post. Other than agreeing with him I have no right to speak for Brian, but I´ll add my own thoughts.
That WW is drama and followed the conventions thereof is not questioned. But that by definition it is a show about politics vaults it out of the realm of art, the abstracting of the human condition in search of insights about it, and into reality itself, as an actor in that reality, i.e. propaganda. While it is axiomatic to say that everything is biased, as you say of MASH etc., propaganda is organized bias for the purpose of altering an outcome. I do not object to a TV show injecting itself into politics. That´s free expression. What I do object to is the pervasive deceit that these shows propagate and the leftist monoculture that the entertainment industry and the "news" industry, which have merged, have become. It is one thing to write a drama that says "We believe this..." and present an honest exploration of the issue. It is quite another to write a drama which ignores the reality of the issue by lying and omission and then have a news report on a supposedly hard news source use exactly the same narrative. This is the device of Orwellian totalitarianism, for all dissenting point of view are written out of existence. There are tons of examples of this.
No, WW did not just try "to make some meaningful sense out of" government or politics. It had already made up its mind, and tried to psychologically coerce their point of view onto others, especially young people. All of these shows are not just entertainment. They are an attempt at a cultural coup. Ripped-from-the-Headlines, indeed.
And a note to Brian Armstrong:
Yeah, it's easy to find people to agree with you. It's not just a TV show, you're right. But Brian, here's the hard part, neither is it just about the 'country and the world' as you say. Here's where it's hard to understand. The West Wing is a, er, show that has to observe the tenets, conventions, what you will, of the television genre.It must have believable characters but to succeed really well, it must have over-the-top characters. Hence your point about Jed Bartlett/Martin Sheen as Richard III. How over the top can you get and a Shakespearean character at that. The bunch of bigots,and assorted characters you refer to, they must work off of the Richard III, and sometimes though not very often, they might come off better than the benevolent dictator. Yes this all sounds cliched but think of the alternative - if this were real life? The characters would meander aimlessly and in a painfully boring way throughout an equally aimlessly boring landscape uttering ridiculously banal and mundane things so much so that we couldn't stomach the inanity of it. You hit one nail on the head, Brian, government should not be glorified but the West Wing (the show not the actual White House) does not glorify government, it tries to make some meaningful sense out of it. Perhaps it preaches, yes, and perhaps it goes too far in its idealism, but there is another way in which I have to disagree with you, Brian, there is not one tv show out there that isn't biased one way or another, West Wing included. You bet it's biased. There isn't a single form of art, whether tv, theatre, films, fiction, painting that isn't biased. All artists make a decision about what 'story' to tell and how to tell it. Aaron Sorkin had his agenda. The difference is in how hard he beats us over the head with it. Sometimes it's subtle, other times not. Remember All in the Family? Biased. MASH? Biased.
But enuff from me. Your turn
Yeah, it's easy to find people to agree with you. It's not just a TV show, you're right. But Brian, here's the hard part, neither is it just about the 'country and the world' as you say. Here's where it's hard to understand. The West Wing is a, er, show that has to observe the tenets, conventions, what you will, of the television genre.It must have believable characters but to succeed really well, it must have over-the-top characters. Hence your point about Jed Bartlett/Martin Sheen as Richard III. How over the top can you get and a Shakespearean character at that. The bunch of bigots,and assorted characters you refer to, they must work off of the Richard III, and sometimes though not very often, they might come off better than the benevolent dictator. Yes this all sounds cliched but think of the alternative - if this were real life? The characters would meander aimlessly and in a painfully boring way throughout an equally aimlessly boring landscape uttering ridiculously banal and mundane things so much so that we couldn't stomach the inanity of it. You hit one nail on the head, Brian, government should not be glorified but the West Wing (the show not the actual White House) does not glorify government, it tries to make some meaningful sense out of it. Perhaps it preaches, yes, and perhaps it goes too far in its idealism, but there is another way in which I have to disagree with you, Brian, there is not one tv show out there that isn't biased one way or another, West Wing included. You bet it's biased. There isn't a single form of art, whether tv, theatre, films, fiction, painting that isn't biased. All artists make a decision about what 'story' to tell and how to tell it. Aaron Sorkin had his agenda. The difference is in how hard he beats us over the head with it. Sometimes it's subtle, other times not. Remember All in the Family? Biased. MASH? Biased.
But enuff from me. Your turn
Thank you, Brian Armstrong, for providing a (real) historical perspective and nailing this show down exactly for what it was. These people are indeed Jacobins and this show, like many others, was intended from the beginning to be a leftwing mouthpiece. Anyone who says that it´s "just entertainment" is either naive or disingenuous. Remember when ABC put out Commander in Chief just when Hillary was getting her motor running? I´m sure it was just a coincidence. Just watch these shows and compare with current events. Watch who they portray as the saints and heroes and as the villians and then watch CNN or read the NYTimes and you´ll see the same cast of characters. "Entertainment" and "News" are pulling in the same direction. As far away from actual reality as possible.
Leave a Comment
