Dear All,
Thank you for your posts! 
I shall think carefully about season 5.
Regards,
glee
Count me as another who thought that season 5 got progressively better, if not as good as the Sorkin years… in particular, it really ended on a high note. I’m very much looking forward to this Wednesday.
There was a very good interview on Tina Brown’s show last night with Sorkin and (I think) Eric Alterman.
Sorkin said that he couldn’t write the show anymore mainly due to the aftereffects of 9/11. He said that he was always romantically optimistic in his writing and that just doesn’t work anymore in political discussion.
It is true, I think. Some of Bartlett’s blue sky ideas that once seemed hopeful and possible would now be met with rolled eyes. Someone would slap him upside the head and tell him to keep his eyes on the terrorists.
I’ll try to find a transcript of the interview.
I hope not Slacker because I’m in the same boat (seat?) as you.
In my opinion, they aren’t “bad”. They’re just different.
The close-to-the-bone speeches the characters were making in earlier seasons were fine for a while, but life goes on and you would expect people to mature both in their lives and their work. Used to be, a typical conversation between Sam Seaborn and, oh, anybody else, would consist of spouting oddball statistics at each other from the latest printing of some obscure government report. Back and forth for two minutes. Snappy timing, sure, but that was more the director than the actor. It’s high time they grew up and stopped with the wide-eyed pontification.
Plus, the Josh character has always been too weak. One dimensional. He comes across as not being as bright as the others, and you wonder basically why he is there in such a high capacity. He’s the punching bag for every gag. He’s borderline misogynistic, but oddly, talks like a feminism activist. I’m glad to see the new writers fleshing him out more now, and his relationship with Donna, which has never been satisfactory.
Last season it seemed like crises would pop up out of nowhere and then go away just as quickly. It started with the “WTF?” feeling a lot of us got when they wrapped up the Zoe kidnapped/Bartlet hands power over to John Goodman thing in two episodes, then never dealt with it again (or brought it up only casually).
The great thing about the early seasons, it seems, was that there were long buildups and strong payoffs that were missing last season. I might think differently if I went back and watched those first four seasons, as I haven’t seen many of the episodes since they aired, but that was my impression.
I’m another one who abandoned ship early last season, as the characters suddenly seemed to be replaced by alien replicants who looked the same but weren’t the same.
I disagree that Josh always seemed weak, and less intelligent than the other characters. Some weeks Sam was the dumb one. 
I think Josh even said at one point that he knew he wasn’t the absolute smartest guy around (he was referring to his college years, but that applies even more to his current situation) and that he got to where he was through hard work and determination. It actually helped endear the character to me.
It also wasn’t always about crisis!
One of my favorite episodes was “The Stackhouse Filibuster” which was about a Senator trying to get money for autism - and if something went wrong, CJ would miss a press deadline!!! Whatever would they do!!!
It was mundane; with Sorokin not everything was imminent life or death or the turning point of the nation (fix Social Security in 3 hours, anyone?). There was the dull, boring stuff of working in the White House, but he could still build around that. The new writers didn’t seem to have that ability … you could see ER all over the place.
What alienated the character from me was his intimidating the Senator who wanted to vote the wishes of his constituents on gun control.
Besides, Bradley Whitford portrayed the jerk boyfriend in Adventures in Babysitting.
West Wing has saved Whitford from my bad favor. He played a royal prick in Bicentennial Man, and he did such a good job of it that I couldn’t stand him.
This episode reminded me of a Sports Night episode when a non-ranked tennis player was staying in play against a number one (or so) seeded opponent. It was blowing their schedule (on-air and off) all to hell. And I haven’t done a comparison, but I swear even some of the lines were the same, word for word.
Well, Sorkin could’ve finished what he started, or at least given his ideas on how Zoenapping should be resolved to John Wells, but he didn’t. I think Wells did a commendable job in picking up a crazy, complicated storyline midstream and resolving it to the best of his ability especially all else which had fallen on his shoulders with the Sorkin-Schlamme exit.
Mind you, look at the lists of episodes and who wrote each, there’s an obvious reason for the patchiness of Season Five in comparison to 1-4, and I think it’s ridiculous that John Wells thought that the different writer every episode scheme which works on ER and Third Watch would work on a show which has been so completely driven by one person. In the first four seasons, only three episodes (“Enemies” in S1 and “Swiss Diplomacy” and “The Long Goodbye” – which is out of continuity – in S4) were not in some way crafted by Sorkin. Fans were going to notice. What was Wells thinking? He should’ve either crafted the season himself or put a head writer into position from S5E1. The hodgepodge hurt, and if it continues, it’ll destroy the show before it’s self-imposed self-destruct date.
(And there is one, and the cast is talking. Richard Schiff said one more year, two at the outside, and no way are they going to transition to a new cast and start all over again. He predicts that the show will end with a lot of focus on Will as the VP gets trounced, and then with tearful goodbyes as everyone walks out of the WW to go back to… real life. Makes sense to me.)
He also played White House Chief of Staff (Leo’s job!) in My Fellow Americans and was an out and out putz who had no problem with trying to assassinate people in order to further his objectives. Whitford plays putzes very well.
Nice analysis, TeaElle! Also, remember that Whitford was the putzy frat guy from Revenge of the Nerds 2. One could almost say he’s typecast. But at least he’s been mostly an affable putz on WW. And I think his character was normally strong and smart, although prone to letting his mouth and/or heart get ahead of his brain, which can be deadly in a situation that requires diplomacy. The Josh character is also susceptible to being dazzled by his own brilliance, which is a dash of realism for anyone who choses a career in politics.
It occured to me this evening that no one who listens to Blind Willie Johnson can be a total putz.
No, Josh is not a total putz, in fact he’s not a putz so much as he occasionally acts terribly putzy due to his own ignorance - i.e. his dealings with Donna. When he’s arrogant, he’s surprisingly unputzy, because he’s typically only arrogant when he’s right.
He’s also occasionally very very very corny. The whole jump out of the car and yell at the Capitol thing? Cheesier than a stuffed crust pizza.
The question is?
When did the show jump the shark?
:eek: :eek: 
That’s quite possible. Sorkin used to borrow, um, liberally from real-life events. The episode where Bartlett sent the woman on welfare a personal check for $500 which never cleared because she framed it, resulting in his sending her another is something that Ronald Reagan actually did.
I can understand borrowing from real life - doesn’t Law & Order do it every week? But I was refering to a plotline on his other show, the half-hour ABC show set in an ESPN late night sports update show. In this specific episode, everybody had something to do after the scheduled 11:00 pm broadcast, but that broadcast was being held up because this guy no one expected kept hanging in there. CJ is telling her father about the whole day by e-mail, and in the Sports Night episode, Jeremy is telling his sister the story by e-mail. It just felt like too-much of a blatant rip-off to me.
Sorry, I don’t understand your jargon.
I was saying there are reports of a massive backlash against the West Wing from it’s faithful fans, because Aaron Sorkin left and the quality dropped.
I wanted to know if this was true, and, if so, when the decline started.