|
Omne posted:At that point wasn't Josh working with Santos? Come to think of it (goes to show how much I paid attention to the oval office during those latter seasons) who took over as Deputy CoS for Josh? Wasn't it CJ?
|
| # ? Jul 28, 2011 22:44 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 06:58 |
|
|
CJ went from Press Secretary to Chief of Staff. They never showed the Deputy CoS.
|
| # ? Jul 28, 2011 22:47 |
|
|
Josh's replacement was Cliff Calley, the Republican Donna dated in season 3. He showed up for a couple episodes and then was an offscreen character in season 7.
|
| # ? Jul 28, 2011 22:52 |
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Josh's replacement was Cliff Calley, the Republican Donna dated in season 3. He showed up for a couple episodes and then was an offscreen character in season 7. Yeah, that and Vinick on staff would never fly in the real world, in today's political climate you're more likely to have an Al-Qaeda member on staff rather than a member of the opposition party.
|
| # ? Jul 28, 2011 22:56 |
|
|
I think one of my favorite moments is when Donna becomes Chief of Staff for the 1st Lady. She made it!
|
| # ? Jul 28, 2011 22:59 |
|
|
Omne posted:Kind of got me thinking...but who is everyone's least favorite character on the main cast? If Santos counts, it's definitely Santos for me. The guy's a Mary Sue to the extreme. It's complete Democrat partisan wish fulfillment. Notable scandal of the Santos campaign: he hosed his wife so hard he broke the bed.  Did he do anything bad during the campaign other than taking the ethanol pledge, which he quickly recanted in private to Vinnick anyway?
|
| # ? Jul 28, 2011 23:33 |
|
|
scarymonkey posted:Yeah, that and Vinick on staff would never fly in the real world, in today's political climate you're more likely to have an Al-Qaeda member on staff rather than a member of the opposition party. Obama has a Republican Secretary of Education & Secretary of Transportation, had a Republican Secretary of Defence, and nominated a Republican as Secretary of Commerce. Bush had some token Democrats on his team as well. Presidents always nominate people from the opposition party as a sop to bipartisanship.
|
| # ? Jul 28, 2011 23:44 |
|
|
t3ch3 posted:If Santos counts, it's definitely Santos for me. The guy's a Mary Sue to the extreme. It's complete Democrat partisan wish fulfillment. To be fair, so was Bartlett.
|
| # ? Jul 29, 2011 00:03 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:To be fair, so was Bartlett. Definitely. But Bartlett at least had flaws. Right out of the gate he was temperamentally vindictive and had to be talked down from carpet bombing the Middle East. He's also a terrible family man and the scandal around his illness (though that was written to be as favorable as possible to his character). And he is the complete opposite of Santos on the class scale, being a rich, white, arrogant descendant of the founder of New Hampshire. Bartlet's at least a well written wish-fulfillment object. Santos is just a megaphone for the most banal sections of the Democratic party platform.
|
| # ? Jul 29, 2011 00:10 |
|
|
I'm watching 3x10 where someone pours a bunch of Johnnie Walker Blue into a glass full of ice 
|
| # ? Jul 29, 2011 18:37 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:To be fair, so was Bartlett. Yeah, but he's all dark and twisty on the inside with his daddy issues and what have you - not to mention he screws the pooch pretty regularly when attempting to deal with his family. He is built up as the ideal liberal politician, but when they flash back to the early campaign, they show a lot of his political weaknesses, and he was kind of a jackass for an episode or two there before Josh's dad died. Chajusong posted:Obama has a Republican Secretary of Education & Secretary of Transportation, had a Republican Secretary of Defence, and nominated a Republican as Secretary of Commerce. Bush had some token Democrats on his team as well. Presidents always nominate people from the opposition party as a sop to bipartisanship. I love this picture of Ray LaHood and Obama...just pretend it's Santos and Vinik palling around the White House instead. marchantia fucked around with this message at Jul 30, 2011 around 07:48 |
| # ? Jul 30, 2011 07:17 |
|
|
I was going to say that that was because we had so much more time with Bartlett than Santos, but we did have Santos part-time for two years and yeah, you're pretty much right. Then again, the Obama campaign... (putting aside what's happened now he's in office)
|
| # ? Jul 30, 2011 07:31 |
|
|
All this West Wing talk makes me want to rewatch the series. I've seen seasons 1-4 twice but 5-7 only once.
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 03:05 |
|
|
There was the implication that Santos had his unemployed brother on the government payroll for years and that he also had an illegitimate child. Vinick found info in his briefcase that he has a separate bank account from his wife which he uses to send monthly checks to some latino woman.
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 03:13 |
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:There was the implication that Santos had his unemployed brother on the government payroll for years and that he also had an illegitimate child. Vinick found info in his briefcase that he has a separate bank account from his wife which he uses to send monthly checks to some latino woman. Vinick thought Santos had a love child that he was secretly paying for, but it turned out Santos was paying for his brother's bastard child instead. Family drama sure, but not on Bartlett's level.
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 04:24 |
|
|
Real life has had much shittier/corrupt presidential siblings, Santos's brother was a lightweight, off the top of my head: Donald Nixon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Nixon Billy Carter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Carter William H.T. "Bucky" Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._T._Bush Roger Clinton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton,_Jr. Neil Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Bush Maybe if the show went on Santos's brother would be caught doing more and more corrupt things leading Santos to frame it all on that bastard Chicky Hines. scarymonkey fucked around with this message at Jul 31, 2011 around 08:22 |
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 08:16 |
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:There was the implication that Santos had his unemployed brother on the government payroll for years and that he also had an illegitimate child. Vinick found info in his briefcase that he has a separate bank account from his wife which he uses to send monthly checks to some latino woman. It sure was worrisome for about a half episode until *SURPRISE* turns out Santos is just a nice guy who cares for his family! As I recall, he reveals all this to Josh who gets that far away look in his eyes as he stares off to the right of the camera in awe and then we never talk about it again.
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 14:26 |
|
|
Omne posted:Vinick thought Santos had a love child that he was secretly paying for, but it turned out Santos was paying for his brother's bastard child instead. Family drama sure, but not on Bartlett's level. I got the impression that it wasn't 100% confirmed either way and Santos could very likely have a love child but nobody was willing to make the election about that.
|
| # ? Jul 31, 2011 14:34 |
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I got the impression that it wasn't 100% confirmed either way and Santos could very likely have a love child but nobody was willing to make the election about that. That's how I took it as well. Everybody was willing to let it go and Vinick wasn't enough of a piece of poo poo to make it an issue, but they didn't necessarily believe it.
|
| # ? Aug 1, 2011 01:32 |
|
|
Just watched "Noel" from season 2. Wow this is a masterfully directed and acted episode. It's about Josh suffering from PTSD and talking to a psychologist, but what's even better is the cast commentary because they are talking about how the one guest actress playing the other psychologist was really hot. They can't stop talking about her.
Mu Zeta fucked around with this message at Aug 1, 2011 around 07:45 |
| # ? Aug 1, 2011 06:50 |
|
|
That episode is the best because it indicates the creators of the show and I have a rapport on the Carol of Bells, the hauntingest Christmas tune on earth.
|
| # ? Aug 1, 2011 07:39 |
|
|
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 Aug 1, 2011 around 13:36 |
| # ? Aug 1, 2011 13:34 |
|
|
t3ch3 posted:If Santos counts, it's definitely Santos for me. The guy's a Mary Sue to the extreme. It's complete Democrat partisan wish fulfillment. Notable scandal of the Santos campaign: he hosed his wife so hard he broke the bed. Don't forget that scandal where his wife wore a thong when greeting her husband after he had been away for a long time! I know that sure made me tense about if Santos could win or not 
|
| # ? Aug 1, 2011 22:48 |
|
|
"You understand I'm working on the inaugural address, right?" "How's that going?" "THERE'S BICYCLES AND GOATS IN MY OFFICE!!" I'm so glad I started watching this show. Haha.
|
| # ? Aug 2, 2011 01:59 |
|
|
thrawn527 posted: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. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_We...tional_timeline quote:The show's presidential elections are held in 2002 and 2006, which are the years of the midterm elections in reality (these dates come from the fact that in the season 2 episode "17 People", Toby specifically mentions 2002 as the year of the president's reelection campaign.[43]). The election timeline in The West Wing matches up with that of the real world until early in the sixth season, when it appears that a year is lost. For example, the filing deadline for the New Hampshire primary, which would normally fall in January 2006, appears in an episode airing in January 2005.
|
| # ? Aug 2, 2011 02:02 |
|
|
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. Don't ask me how to explain the full year gap including a midterm election that happens in season five, though.
|
| # ? Aug 2, 2011 03:53 |
|
|
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 12:53 |
|
|
There's also the kidnapping arc, which they state takes place on May 7, then two episodes later she's back and it's the 4th of July 
|
| # ? Aug 3, 2011 01:57 |
|
|
I just watched "The Stormy Present" tonight, and it was one of my favorites from season 5 so far. I loved seeing some of the past presidents of the West Wing world. (And John Goodman coming back is always welcome.) The one after it, "The Benign Prerogative", is kinda too flash-backy and ends on a bummer note, but I can see how they're starting to groom Donna to be a more important player in the White House.
|
| # ? Aug 3, 2011 03:53 |
|
|
Just started my rewatch. I've missed these characters so much.
|
| # ? Aug 3, 2011 23:01 |
|
|
Poor Sam, not getting the environmentalists to stand after an awesome speech because Toby made the President admonish them  Edit: and then not being able to see the president
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 04:48 |
|
|
Look who showed up in the series finale
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 06:17 |
|
|
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.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 19:44 |
|
|
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.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 19:58 |
|
|
WoG posted: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.) Josh still outranks the rest of the staff, though. Remember, he was given access to the secure bunker and no one else was. While there's not a direct line from Toby to Josh, Josh is still above him. DCoS executes the legislative agenda and the President's message falls within that purview.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 20:56 |
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Look who showed up in the series finale Those last however many years were really rough on Mandy, huh?
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 22:26 |
|
|
Omne posted:Josh still outranks the rest of the staff, though. Remember, he was given access to the secure bunker and no one else was. While there's not a direct line from Toby to Josh, Josh is still above him. DCoS executes the legislative agenda and the President's message falls within that purview. True, though in that episode they made it sound like his inclusion was less about rank and more about function. As the point man on domestic policy and chief liaison with Congress, Josh is more important to the continued functioning of the government than people like CJ and Toby who are just responsible for shaping the message.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 22:52 |
|
|
 "That's never happened before, has it?" "No. No it hasn't."
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 00:25 |
|
|
Scenes that are embarrassing to watch because they force the characters into unrealistic situations: * The principals singing HMS Pinafore tunes to Ainsley * Josh yelling "BRING IT ON" at the Capitol building
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 00:32 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 06:58 |
|
|
t3ch3 posted:Scenes that are embarrassing to watch because they force the characters into unrealistic situations: * The principals standing in Leo's office and saying "I serve at the pleasure of the president" one by one * The principals sitting in front of Josh's apartment and all saying "God Bless America" one by one
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 01:10 |
|
