The West Wing! Hooray!

[Nanook]

After a half-season of so-so entries, TWW recovers its former glory with a compelling episode. Yes! They've jettisoned the dark Godfather-like interiors and lighting (at least in this chapter). Yes! They've conjoined the political and the personal storylines. Yes! John Wells realized this is THE WEST WING and not CHINA BEACH (which I loved, but....) unlike last week's retro episode.

[amarinth]

I had the exact opposite reaction.

There was no research done whatsoever, they completely screwed the voucher story (apparently no one understood the political positions, or thought the viewers wouldn't either), Charlie was a pathetic joke. The intern showing up Josh (aha, he's young, and oh so clever) was old and stupid the first time. Now it's just blechh. Josh saying "that's the Hoynes I know" was beyond preposterous, because it wasn't the Hoynes that any of us have seen for the past 5 years, and suddenly inventing an affair between him and CJ doesn't make sense at all - given the way they've interacted ever since. (The old episodes are showing on Bravo. We saw them together last night. Tonight's episode was straight from Falcon Crest (which is not where I go for great storytelling, dialogue, or acting)).

What else is showing at 9pm on Wednesday? this isn't even treadmill material anymore.

[ivylass]

I also questioned the CJ/Hoynes one-night stand. As I understand the timeline:

Bartlet has been in office 6 years. CJ has been with him since the campaign, so say she's been with him 7-8 years.

Before that, she was a highly paid consultant in California. Since Hoynes would not have been picked as a running mate until after Bartlet secured the nomination, when would Hoynes and CJ have met 10 years ago? She wasn't even in politics, she was in the entertainment industry.

On another note, is anyone noticing any vibes between CJ and Toby? In the past, there has been banter between them. CJ succeeded in barring reporters and cameras from some protest group Toby was supposed to address, saying something to him like, "You want to throw me on the floor and do me right now, don't you?" and he says, quietly rather than flirtaciously, "When do I not?" Another time, after the Prez's approval numbers jumped, Toby called out to CJ, "Dance with me!" before she hurried off to her office. I hope they keep their relationship professional...the undercurrents are more interesting, kind of like Jack and Claire on Law & Order.

[ivylass]

Oh, one more thing...they mentioned The Drudge Report! Hee hee hee...

[Munch]

amarinth, I completely disagree. What research wasn't done? How was the voucher situation screwed up - I've yet to hear a Democrat support school vouchers.

The intern has been an excellent development. He was annoying his first couple episodes, but he's showing his true abilities now. Who cares if it's been done before - what hasn't? Pierce is the politician that Josh has always wanted to be, but doesn't have the natural ability. Josh is, and always will be, a policy man - behind the scenes.

And whether or not what Hoynes is doing now is accurate compared to the old Hoynes, the fact is that the old Hoynes was boring. And, they need to start a Democratic primary for once Bartlett's term ends (you didn't think they were just going to end the series, did you?). A Hoynes/Bingo Bob primary will be good, especially with some intrique a la CJ.

Before that, she was a highly paid consultant in California. Since Hoynes would not have been picked as a running mate until after Bartlet secured the nomination, when would Hoynes and CJ have met 10 years ago? She wasn't even in politics, she was in the entertainment industry.

Yes, but she wasn't any good in the entertainment industry, and we have no idea what she did before that. My guess would be politics.

[Jane D'oh!]

While I didn't like the CJ/Hoynes affair and the whole it was built around, I liked the ep. I liked last weeks, too though, so take that with a grain of salt.

I feel that bit by bit, the stories are getting better. Conversations/characters are not as well developed as they were even three years ago, but they are not the worst on TV either.

I liked the end when CJ called the guy who's been on her for a date, Rob? Bob? I don't remember his name. I identified with that feeling a lot. "Talk about anything but my job." That to me was the closest CJ came to being the CJ of previous seasons.

[ivylass]

I just find the comparison between the early episodes (they just started all over again on Bravo) and the current to be unbelievable. The early Sorkin episodes had a vitality and a crispness of dialogue that are missing in the Wells episodes.

[TheFifthYear]

What was Josh's crack about Chinese women and bras? I think he said, "Do Chinese women even need bras?"

If I didn't mishear or misunderstand, that's a stunningly ignorant and stereotypical remark that didn't deserve to be on television, much less on the West Wing.

[amarinth]

Originally Posted by Munch

amarinth, I completely disagree. What research wasn't done? How was the voucher situation screwed up - I've yet to hear a Democrat support school vouchers.

You probably haven't.
Because, as Charlie said, he didn't come close to being able to afford Gonzaga. The problem with vouchers is that anyone who "couldn't come close" to being able to afford private school without vouchers still isn't going to be able to come close to being able to afford private school with vouchers. They're not high enough, they don't pay enough of the tuition of private education. Charlie might have run to a voucher program, but he still wouldn't have been able to go to the school he wanted to attend.

Vouchers will make it possible for those who can already afford private school to go cheaper, they'll make it possible for those who come close, but it might involve a bit too much sacrifice to go...but a family with 2 kids on a patrolwoman's salary? Vouchers aren't going to cut it. And the mayor of DC would know that, Charlie would know the difference in tuition and know that, and a nobel prize winning economist most certainly would know that. The fact that none of them even mentioned it is sloppy, poorly researched storytelling.
(Also Charlie's "About time" aside and sucking up to the Mayor were entirely un-Charlie like.)

We also do know where CJ was before her stint in Hollywood, she was doing work with something that was supposed to remind us of Emily's List (without actually being Emily's List).

[Munch]

Because, as Charlie said, he didn't come close to being able to afford Gonzaga. The problem with vouchers is that anyone who "couldn't come close" to being able to afford private school without vouchers still isn't going to be able to come close to being able to afford private school with vouchers. They're not high enough, they don't pay enough of the tuition of private education. Charlie might have run to a voucher program, but he still wouldn't have been able to go to the school he wanted to attend.

Actually Charlie would have been able to (my college roommate was able to afford to go to Gonzaga High by working summers). But your point is taken. The one disappointing thing was that the nobel prize winning economist didn't concede that vouchers pump more money into education than would have been pumped.

[Survey1215]

I thought the episode was ok. Which sucks, b/c TWW should be much better than just 'ok.' The past few weeks I've found myself watching partly out of habit and partly due to a useless hope that Mary-Louise Parker will show up again, dressed scantily, talking dirty talk while drinking Strawberry Hill out of the bottle.

[damnit there's my outloud voice again...]

[Achernar]

Originally Posted by TheFifthYear

What was Josh's crack about Chinese women and bras? I think he said, "Do Chinese women even need bras?"

Well, I don't know what he meant, but I don't think he meant what you think he meant. What he said was, "Do the Chinese even need bras?"

Originally Posted by Munch

Actually Charlie would have been able to (my college roommate was able to afford to go to Gonzaga High by working summers). But your point is taken. The one disappointing thing was that the nobel prize winning economist didn't concede that vouchers pump more money into education than would have been pumped.

He did concede that, or at least he didn't deny that, but that wasn't the point. The more money that gets pumped in gets given to 2% of students while the money that gets pumped is taken from the other 98%. In this case, money does not translate directly into utility. I think that while the Mayor was right when he said the President was trying to run his city, when the Mayor said, "Ask these kids what they think about vouchers, and they'll say where do I sign up?" Bartlett should have responded, "Then tell them, the vouchers aren't for you - he's going to Gonzaga, and you lost your school band. What do you think now?"

[Turek]

Originally Posted by TheFifthYear

What was Josh's crack about Chinese women and bras? I think he said, "Do Chinese women even need bras?"

If I didn't mishear or misunderstand, that's a stunningly ignorant and stereotypical remark that didn't deserve to be on television, much less on the West Wing.

<heavy sarcasm>
Oh, yes, please! Let's turn this into a political correctness and censorship debate!
</heavy sarcasm>

[TheFifthYear]

Originally Posted by Turek

<heavy sarcasm>
Oh, yes, please! Let's turn this into a political correctness and censorship debate!
</heavy sarcasm>

First of all, no body said anything about censorship but you. I was asking for clarification of a remark that offended myself and a couple of friends. I thought there could be another explanation, because it was a very un-WW like joke. So far, we've got one person who didn't know what it meant, but didn't think it was offensive, and you, who apparently has nothing meaningful to add except a worthless and sarcastic remark. So thanks for posting, really. You're a champ.

[bibliophile]

Did anybody else think the CJ/Hoynes thing was going to be a little more ugly than it turned out to be? When the subject first came up, I thought maybe Hoynes had gotten inappropriately "friendly" or maybe even threatening or sexually menacing to CJ years earlier — especially when Toby offered to give her a ride to meet Hoynes and made a point of hanging around to check up on her when she got back.

And, while I'm at it, why does Toby know CJ slept with Hoynes a decade ago? And if Toby knows, who else does? Most of us have a one-nighter we're less than proud of for one reason or another, but who tells their co-workers about it, especially if you're in politics where rumors run rampant as it is?

ivylass, I've noticed the CJ/Toby thing too. Is Andi completely out of the picture now? And what about the twins?

[ivylass]

They probably went to Mandyville.

[amarinth]

Originally Posted by bibliophile

ivylass, I've noticed the CJ/Toby thing too. Is Andi completely out of the picture now? And what about the twins?

They've been forgotten. Huck got a bris 2 months late, and since then - they've disappeared...along with the fat, juicy lawsuit that Andi was facing for being pregnant during the campaign.

She's supposed to run again this year...but I bet that's been forgotten too.

[swansont]

Originally Posted by amarinth

They've been forgotten. Huck got a bris 2 months late, and since then - they've disappeared...along with the fat, juicy lawsuit that Andi was facing for being pregnant during the campaign.

She's supposed to run again this year...but I bet that's been forgotten too.

She just ran - she was pregnant at the time of the election. WW is shifted a year or so off from US politics.

I liked the throwaway line about DC water, which you might miss if you don't live in the area (problems with lead), when the reporter gets offered a drink at his sit-down with CJ.


"It's DC water."

"I'm good."

[amarinth]

Originally Posted by swansont

She just ran - she was pregnant at the time of the election. WW is shifted a year or so off from US politics.

It's shifted two years off...but Andi's a congresswoman. She runs every two years. This is the year of the midterm elections in WW.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I agree that the voucher non-debate was completely non-credible. No one mentioned the critical point that vouchers would use tax money to fund parochial - i.e. religious - schools. This violates the separation of church and state, IMO, and even if some people disagree on this point, the Bartlet administration doesn't - or didn't used to. Separation of church and state has been used as a principle more than once in the past. Since they used Gonzaga for the example, someone needed to at least make the argument. A statement of belief that a policy is both unconstitutional and would destroy the public school system for everyone left in it is obviously superior to "the Democrats aren't for vouchers."

But as a program it mostly all worked. Shows with a million important issues and behind the scenes problems all going on at once are far superior to the beat-one-issue-to-death version they started out the year with. CJ's "secret" is the kind of thing tv shows pull in the fifth season, so while it's stupid you have to roll with the punches.

Overall, the season keeps getting better. They just need to decide whether they're really Democrats or not.

[Rubystreak]

Originally Posted by Munch

The intern has been an excellent development. He was annoying his first couple episodes, but he's showing his true abilities now. Who cares if it's been done before - what hasn't? Pierce is the politician that Josh has always wanted to be, but doesn't have the natural ability. Josh is, and always will be, a policy man - behind the scenes.

The problem is that Josh is coming off as being needlessly antagonistic and incompetent, or more accurately, is being written that way now. How lame is it that he needed that kid to make him look good to that Senator? And that he needed the kid to bail him out last time he made a gross error in judgement when dealing with a sensitive member of Congress? That's all bad enough, but then he's snarky and insulting about it, overcompensating for his poor performance.

I miss the real Josh.

[swansont]

Originally Posted by amarinth

It's shifted two years off...but Andi's a congresswoman. She runs every two years. This is the year of the midterm elections in WW.

The reelection was last season. It's only one year off.

[Gadarene]

It's two years off.

First season finale: Rosslyn shooting
Second season finale: Bartlet's seeking a second term
Third season finale: CJ's Secret Service "friend" gets shot and killed
Fourth season finale: Zoe's kidnapped

The Bartlet reelection happened third season. It's established canon that Bartlet was first elected in 1998; he was reelected in 2002.

[swansont]

Originally Posted by Gadarene

It's two years off.

First season finale: Rosslyn shooting
Second season finale: Bartlet's seeking a second term
Third season finale: CJ's Secret Service "friend" gets shot and killed
Fourth season finale: Zoe's kidnapped

The Bartlet reelection happened third season. It's established canon that Bartlet was first elected in 1998; he was reelected in 2002.

OK, roughly two years, but the seasons don't start on the calendar year.

The third season finale happens before the election, since Gov. Ritchie also attends the fundraiser event they are attending in NY, so he was not elected in season three. Season four contains the episodes entitled Debate Camp, Election Night, Inauguration part I and Inauguration: Over There.

The midterms will happen sometime in season six.

[Gadarene]

I'm sorry, you're absolutely right--the re-election happens in the beginning of season 4. I screwed that bit up.

However, West Wing elections are still exactly two years out of synch with our own. The execrable episode The Midterms happened in the fall of 2000; Bartlet's re-election happened in the fall of 2002. The next set of midterms are fall of 2004.

So it's not that the midterms will happen "sometime" in season six; if past practice is any guide, they'll happen in September, October, or (possibly) November 2004. That is, West Wing's midterms will be held at the same time, roughly, as our presidential election. Thus, two year difference.

[Bell Jar]

Originally Posted by ivylass

I just find the comparison between the early episodes (they just started all over again on Bravo) and the current to be unbelievable. The early Sorkin episodes had a vitality and a crispness of dialogue that are missing in the Wells episodes.

I recently finished watching the first season all over again on dvd, and I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, after watching that first season again, I've been even more disappointed with recent episodes. It's just not there anymore.

[Liberal]

I sort of agree. But then again, it makes sense to me that the characters are more mature. They've been there a while now, and a lot of the "chickens with their heads cut off" hectic chaos should be behind them. At least, I would hope so. Regarding Josh, though, he impresses me as a guy with one foot (and half his head) in the future at all times. He's never been quite... I don't know... centered.

[amarinth]

Originally Posted by swansont

OK, roughly two years, but the seasons don't start on the calendar year.

And had I meant "season" I would have said "season," but I didn't. I meant year.

I do not know how things are in your corner of the world. But in mine, those people who are trying to keep their seats (or trying to get those seats) have already started. They've begun to campaign. They're laying in the groundwork for their own campaigns, and they've started digging the dirt on their opponents. Though the election (which you're quite right will happen during next season's November sweeps (if the new writers remember it....)) is later, activity around the election is quite underway. A lawsuit like the one Andi was to have been facing would be in the news now, and as it is directly about the twins, it would be having an effect on Toby (if it weren't for the fact that both Andi and the twins have effectively disappeared).

I think it had potential to be a good strong storyline that, as far as I can tell, the writers were given and effectively dropped. (Much better storyline and much better dramatic potential for Toby than the "I fixed social security" episode.)