so, about the west wing...

silverwhisper

just this guy, you know?
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Posts
11,319
[makes offering to the moderators]

[utters prayer: "please don't move this thread to the GB"]

so EJfan and i have been PMing about the west wing and we're having a bit of a difference of opinion as to who will win the next election in the show.

does anybody else have any thoughts on it?

i will refrain from posting my own thoughts for the time being, lest they influence someone's reply.

ed
 
i'll hold off on my thoughts too ed. suffice it to say that we have polar opposite thoughts on this.

that's all. duh. ;)
 
well, since nobody else is replying, i guess there's no danger of my influencing anybody's opinion. :>

i feel that the democratic nominee, matt santos (played by jimmy smits) will win the election. i base that call on the following:

1. it's TV, and most writers are democrats.
2. in the way the story's developed, santos is clearly being described as the inheritor of the incumbent's fire, so to speak.
3. 2 of the cast are now already tightly-integrated into the santos campaign: josh ***** (bradley whitford) and leo mcgary (john spencer).

anybody else have an opinion on this?

ed
 
silverwhisper said:
well, since nobody else is replying, i guess there's no danger of my influencing anybody's opinion. :>

i feel that the democratic nominee, matt santos (played by jimmy smits) will win the election. i base that call on the following:

1. it's TV, and most writers are democrats.
2. in the way the story's developed, santos is clearly being described as the inheritor of the incumbent's fire, so to speak.
3. 2 of the cast are now already tightly-integrated into the santos campaign: josh ***** (bradley whitford) and leo mcgary (john spencer).

anybody else have an opinion on this?

ed

I agree 100%.
 
EJfan, you still poking around here? i'd like to see your counter-argument. :>

ed
 
silverwhisper said:
EJfan, you still poking around here? i'd like to see your counter-argument. :>

ed

still lurkin' about, silver... just had a busy weekend pretending to enjoy my mother's visit. ;)

my counterpoint, as i mentioned in the PM's, is that the show has mirrored reality to a great extent. so i think alda/vinnick will be the next president (see my not so cryptic "that's all. duh" reference in my first post).

rationale:
1. Vinnick follows bartlett = bush follows clinton

2. it gives balance to show west wing life from the right instead of the left for a while

3. it'll freshen the writing and cast (which they sorely need now)

4. alda's career is closer to the point where he can/should do a role like this... smits' is not. smits being pres on "west wing" would be like jude law being the next bond... not a logical career choice.
 
my compliments on your filial piety. :>

the show is in its what, fourth or fifth season now? when you're this deep into a show, a wholesale cast change like what you're suggesting would make it, effectively, a new show. the joint chiefs and other non-white house staff would be the same, but these guys aren't the stars of the show.

ed
 
believe it or not, my filial piety has never actually been complimented before!
 
now see, and people always saying that onlne discussion forums are a waste of time... :D

ed
 
i think we should have a thread to discuss the veracity of the claim that online discussion forums are a waste of time. could supporters participate? or would supporters who participate automatically become dissenters? or would they become hypocrites?

then again, water is water and east is east and west is west.

and when you take cranberries and stew 'em like applesauce, they taste a lot more like prunes than rhubarb does.
 
silverwhisper said:

i can't rightfully take credit for you either the rof-ing or the l-ing. it's part of an old marx bros bit. i can't remember which film but it may have been in the scene where they're talking about a viaduct... chico asks, "vi a duck, vi not a chicken?"
 
ah, the marx brothers... :>

any thoughts on my point that you wouldn't change the cast wholesale, esp this deep into the show's life?

ed
 
i think you have a valid point with that... however...

the show is designed to mirror life in the west wing and does so fairly accurately. the west wing changes residents with every election to some extent or another. i, personally, believe it would be totally acceptable to "change the cast wholesale" and i think it would actually be good.

just my opinion, but i'd LOVE to make a wager on this. how about if i'm right, you run through literotica totally nude?
 
ah, so you're a watcher of the shield, eh? does that make you or me mackey? i'm thinking you, cuz you've been here longer. :>

i disagree that the show is written to mirror reality to that extent, of course. :>

ed
 
i've never seen "the shield"... i'd like to but just never fit it into the schedule.

what we really need to do is find a way to keep this thread alive 'til the election. i'm surprised it's survived this long... knock wood.

are we the only two who watch it? my little group of WW viewers from the past have scattered to the four corners, so i'm glad there's at least one other person to discuss it with... just wish there were more than the two of us.

maybe change the name of the thread to "3 tits... what should i do???"
 
rent the shield: each season is only 4 discs, none of them more than 15 eps/season. brilliant writing but very gritty.

you know, we could always search for it come election season...assuming we're both still posting here then... :>

ed
 
i'll certainly be 'round... i just am inclined to think the thread'll be expunged after a period of inactivity. can't keep 'em around forever.
 
well, assuming they purge based upon last post date, we'll just have to make sure it doesn't wind up too old... :>

ed
 
silverwhisper said:
well, assuming they purge based upon last post date, we'll just have to make sure it doesn't wind up too old... :>

ed


it seems to me i said this about a blind date once.
 
silverwhisper said:
well, since nobody else is replying, i guess there's no danger of my influencing anybody's opinion. :>

i feel that the democratic nominee, matt santos (played by jimmy smits) will win the election. i base that call on the following:

1. it's TV, and most writers are democrats.
2. in the way the story's developed, santos is clearly being described as the inheritor of the incumbent's fire, so to speak.
3. 2 of the cast are now already tightly-integrated into the santos campaign: josh ***** (bradley whitford) and leo mcgary (john spencer).

anybody else have an opinion on this?

ed


I find myself in agreement, but am hoping that the writing improves with the addition of new characters. Perhaps we will see a Whitehouse in which the President's wife has much more input into the decision making process.
 
i'm finding myself more and more in the minority here. i guess there'll be a LOT of you running nekkid through literotica come next fall. :nana:

if only i were turned on by such things.
 
Love to be able to comment about the stage the show is up to...but here in the land down under our television station which has bought the rights to screen it here has fucked around so badly, we have no idea what's going on!

Please don't talk about where things are too much or we wont have anything to look forward to when they finally start screening it again..... :(
 
australwind said:
Please don't talk about where things are too much or we wont have anything to look forward to when they finally start screening it again..... :(

lol. i feel for you but i'd have to advise you to avoid the thread 'cause i (and i presume silverwhisper) hope to see a lot of discussion going on here. is there any chance you can get the series on one of the other nbc-affiliated cable stations (bravo, msnbc, etc.)????

once the damned "revelations" miniseries is over things will crank up some and this could actually become a legitimate "how to cafe" thread.
 
australwind, i love that handle. :> and i second EJfan's suggestion that you avoid this thread. you've probably already seen a few spoilers, i wager...

ed
 
Back
Top