Unpopular Opinions: Total Crackpot Thread

[Melancholy]

Somebody's Going To Emergency... is overrated. I actually think it's my least favorite ep in the sublime S2. And you know, I'm not wild about Rob Lowe's performance. I found it overwrought. In addition, protesters against current free trade agreements aren't crackpots. Maybe that's particularly stark now with hostility to free trade characterizing the the base of both political parties today but even in the halycon days of 2000, these aren't crackpots. Toby's whole story is dull- it's just some going nowhere flirting with the cop. The ep has merit but it's all in Leo's interrupted Big Block of Cheese speech, cartographers for social equality, and quite frankly, Casper and Nancy having no time for Sam's overwrought poorly informed accusations. And the funny pathos of Jed already seeing end of his presidency in Year 2 of the series because that's how that goes. 

Meanwhile, I like Swiss Diplomacy. There's a mean edge to the banter from the non-Sorkin writers just learning to write without Sorkin but it's funny and all of the plots are interesting. Jed's whole "Lol. The organs are in Zurich. Don't mind me. I was the kid in bio who laughed all the time" bit slays me. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Melancholy

[Zola]

- I couldn't stand the Simon Donovan/CJ Thing at the back end of S3. It felt so hackneyed and forced. It was if the writers had no confidence in the original cliffhanger of Bartlet assassinating-by-proxy, the Qumari Defence Minister; so they thought up this "Plan B" cliffhanger by creating this awkward/mechanical "romance" with the rather unsurprising ending! 

Awful, awful, awful!

- Never liked the totally unconvincing "an asteroid might hit the Earth" sub-plots in "Impact Winter" from S6. There's no real sense of drama, panic, urgency from the White House, the NSA or anyone! Bartlet in China having talks, and yet the Chinese don't even seem all that bothered that there "might be a new Ice Age next Tuesday" to quote Josh.

A total pointless story-line.

- The two interns in S5 - one for Josh, one for Toby. Clearly the producers of the show were worried about falling ratings, the loss of Sorkin and the loss of Lowe. And with the unevenness of S5 they must have decided to broaden the appeal of the show to a younger audience, and thus introduce Ryan and the young woman (who's name escapes me). But neither brought much to the show other than introduce soap-opera to a quality political drama. Then they just disappeared to Mandyville, never to be seen or heard of again.

[Moose135]

1 hour ago, Only Zola said:

the young woman (who's name escapes me)

Marina

[Melancholy]

UO: I didn't care for Donna's "smack-down"  of Josh and Toby at the end of 20 Hours in America. Josh and Toby are top-level campaign strategists. I would *expect* them to constantly debate how the campaign's broader message was playing out when they were cut off from their main schedules and duties by the travel snafu. I wouldn't expect them at all to use this calamity as a time to Pollyanna bask in the glories of Rural USA and extoll the virtues of salt of the earth "Didn't vote for him the first time. Don't plan to the second time" folks.  And Josh and Toby did try to be friendly to Hoosiers at some points. Josh tried makes the best of the experience "This is fun! We're roughing it!.....This is fun...." I felt like Donna was just personally annoyed with hearing the same debate on messaging all day in close quarters while Josh/Toby were not helpful in the logistics in traveling because they're childish that way. Which is fair enough. But she felt the need to elevate her smackdown by accusing Josh and Toby of being assholes to the Hoosiers or out of touch with small-town America or something. It reminded me of CJ volunteering her resignation as a sacrificial lamb after the scandal Jed created and Jed trying to recover by his moral high ground by responding to her communications-analysis with a statistics-laden unresponsive rant on poverty in America. Josh and Toby should have similarly addressed the heart of irrelevant sanctimony with "Don't lecture us" as CJ did.  

Edited April 22, 2017 by Melancholy

[twinkietwin94]

4 hours ago, Melancholy said:

UO: I didn't care for Donna's "smack-down"  of Josh and Toby at the end of 20 Hours in America. Josh and Toby are top-level campaign strategists. I would *expect* them to constantly debate how the campaign's broader message was playing out when they were cut off from their main schedules and duties by the travel snafu. I wouldn't expect them at all to use this calamity as a time to Pollyanna bask in the glories of Rural USA and extoll the virtues of salt of the earth "Didn't vote for him the first time. Don't plan to the second time" folks.  And Josh and Toby did try to be friendly to Hoosiers at some points. Josh tried makes the best of the experience "This is fun! We're roughing it!.....This is fun...." I felt like Donna was just personally annoyed with hearing the same debate on messaging all day in close quarters while Josh/Toby were not helpful in the logistics in traveling because they're childish that way. Which is fair enough. But she felt the need to elevate her smackdown by accusing Josh and Toby of being assholes to the Hoosiers or out of touch with small-town America or something. It reminded me of CJ volunteering her resignation as a sacrificial lamb after the scandal Jed created and Jed trying to recover by his moral high ground by responding to her communications-analysis with a statistics-laden unresponsive rant on poverty in America. Josh and Toby should have similarly addressed the heart of irrelevant sanctimony with "Don't lecture us" as CJ did.  

I can understand your view but for me she had a point. They weren't listening to Amy Adams character who was supportive of them. Ok so don't worry about everyone else who "didn't vote for him the first time won't vote for him now" but the person on your side is trying to talk to you and you ignore what they're saying that's a problem for me. 

[Melancholy]

I'll grant that Toby was rude to Kathy but Josh was engaging with Kathy fine. Yes, Josh declined Kathy's invitation to stay longer at Indiana and he was skeptical about the worthiness of more farming subsidies but he was discoursing with like a Bartlet supporter. Josh even scolded Toby a little for being rude.

JOSH: You want to lighten up a little?

TOBY: I am lightened up. This is me lightened up. You're saying lighter?

JOSH: Yeah.

[PeterPirate]

I have two UOs. 

I hated Ainsley's "I'm they're lawyer" speech at the end of In This White House. 

I loved when Amy throws Josh's phone into the stew in We Killed Yamamoto. 

[Melancholy]

I also liked Amy destroying Josh's phones. Obviously very wrong and unethical but Mary Louise Parker's typically Deadpan Superior Sexy affect was very funny paired with the childish sabotage. 

I think I said before that I love Hoynes, and in many ways, I think he's a good guy. To add, Jed explaining that he treats Hoynes like dirt because "You shouldn't have made me beg, John. I was asking you to be Vice President. You shouldn't have made me beg" was a vile NON-justification and it was disturbing that Jed thought it was a fair reason to hold a grudge. I think it'd be vile in any circumstance but especially in the, "So, I just beat you for the nomination, with WHAT IM SURE involved a narrative that I'm the underdog honest professor-type cuddly New England granddad and you're the less honest Texas slick guy. But I just lied about my health. Wanna be my VP and complicit in my fraud?" circumstance that did exist. 

That said, some pivotal scenes and Martin Sheen's performance gives me cover to believe that deep down, Bartlet knows he's a prick to Hoynes. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Melancholy

[Zola]

As much as I liked Danny, I could never quite understand how he had so much unfettered access to CJ!

One minute he is seated in the press room listening to her latest briefing, the next he is barging his way to the front of the room, through the door I thought only permitted staff could use, and then does a walk-and-talk with CJ all the way into her office, whilst walking through other open-plan offices as if they weren't there!

I rarely saw other press members having the same kind of liberal access; although there were times certain members were invited into her office, but never actually did what Danny did - just barging his way from the press room and into her face, demanding answers to his questions despite the briefing being well  and truly over!

It's a small point I know, but it still bugs me sometimes.

[Judois]

I'm not sure how many of you notice this on your rewatches but on my 2nd rewatch now I'm noticing just how much Sorkin uses "I'm sorry" as in the person not hearing what the other person said. Does anybody ever listen? It drives me nuts. Such a lazy affectation. 

[twinkietwin94]

On 5/29/2017 at 3:42 AM, Judois said:

I'm not sure how many of you notice this on your rewatches but on my 2nd rewatch now I'm noticing just how much Sorkin uses "I'm sorry" as in the person not hearing what the other person said. Does anybody ever listen? It drives me nuts. Such a lazy affectation. 

Never noticed but I will now. I myself say I'm sorry when I don't hear someone but I also tell them that as in "I'm sorry I didn't hear you could you please repeat what you said?" I think just saying I'm sorry means the same thing and is faster to say lol

[Crs97]

I almost always say, "I'm sorry" when I need someone to repeat themselves.  Frankly, I should stop that.

[Kohola3]

Um, I had no idea my speech pattern was a "lazy affectation".  As someone of a certain age, I often miss what the younger speed talkers are saying.  Instead of going the "I'm sorry I didn't hear you could you please repeat what you said" route 50 times a conversation, I just say "I'm sorry" with a rise at the end.  I had no idea it was offensive.

[Judois]

That isn't what I meant. I meant that it was a lazy affectation for Sorkin as a writer. It happens at least twice an episode. And it isn't the "I'm sorry" or "What did you just say?" which bothers me. It's how he uses that as a dramatic effect. It was not meant as a personal attack on actual people. 

[Driad]

It didn't bother me, but now that you mention it, these characters come from different places, so it might have been more realistic to have them use different phrases rather than all the same.

[Zola]

I don't know if this has been touched on elsewhere on this West Wing forum, so apologies if I'm repeating something.

On a few occasions throughout the show, I nave noticed some characters, most noticeably Toby, say "I could care less!" Whereas, I was always brought up to believe it was "I couldn't care less!"

As a consequence, whenever I hear Toby say the former, it kind of grates like nails down a blackboard, just in the same way as the overuse of "I'm sorry!" or "Excuse me?" in the show.

The former doesn't sound grammatically or logically correct; whereas the latter is compounded by having a double negative in the sentence, which is often seen as bad grammar, but somehow makes more sense in context. Although for all I know this could be more of a regional thing: I have rarely come across the former in any form here in the UK; so perhaps it's more of a North American thing?

Anyway, just a small peeve, that's all

[Kohola3]

4 hours ago, Only Zola said:

Anyway, just a small peeve, that's all

It is a major peeve with me.  Toby would never use the incorrect form.  It has become a colloquialism in the US but it still incorrect.  "I could care less" means that you DO care, not that you don't.  I couldn't care less is correct but is becoming increasingly overlooked.  Drives me nuts.

[Bastet]

Exactly; a lot of people say it wrong, but Toby would not be one of them.  In fact, under appropriate circumstances, Toby might very well comment on someone's incorrect use of the phrase.

[Zola]

Hope I have posted in the right place, but I was wondering/pondering something with regards the final episode of s1.

I don't really understand what that skinhead guy was doing in the crowds when POTUS and his entourage were coming out of that convention centre?

The assassins in the tower opposite knew the president would be coming out from that exit, and they couldn't  really miss him even from their elevated height. So why bother with the "lookout" in the crowd, he didn't really serve any purpose other than alert  Gina of the Secret Service.

I was also surprised the assassins only had hand guns to do their ghastly deed; if you're going to assassinate someone you would have thought they would have tooled up with assault rifles rather than just firing aimlessly in the crowd.

[BW Manilowe]

Zola said:

I don't really understand what that skinhead guy was doing in the crowds when POTUS and his entourage were coming out of that convention centre?

I think the Skinhead was the signal guy/the lookout for the shooters. They do mention a signal guy in the aftermath of the shooing, at the beginning of S2. And Gina kicks herself mentally because she saw the guy, but she can't give the ID agent on the scene after the shooting a description of him. Which is more than kind of a bad thing for a supposedly excellent Secret Service Agent, as Gina's supposed to be.

POTUS & his entourage weren't actually at a Convention Center. They were at a real-life building, The Newseum. It's an interactive museum promoting free expression & the First Amendment to the US Constitution (the right to free speech), while tracing the evolution of communication.

At the time this episode was filmed, it was located in Rosslyn, Virginia (part of the Virginia suburbs in the metropolitan Washington, DC, area; as I remember, Rosslyn is also mentioned in the show in the aftermath of the shooting). It later moved to Washington, DC, where it remains today.

I'm not sure this is the right place for your post, necessarily (well, you asked). I'd have probably put it in the S1 thread or the All Episodes Discussion thread instead. It didn't really seem to me you were expressing an unpopular opinion.

[Zola]

1 hour ago, BW Manilowe said:

Zola said:

 

 

I think the Skinhead was the signal guy/the lookout for the shooters. They do mention a signal guy in the aftermath of the shooing, at the beginning of S2. And Gina kicks herself mentally because she saw the guy, but she can't give the ID agent on the scene after the shooting a description of him. Which is more than kind of a bad thing for a supposedly excellent Secret Service Agent, as Gina's supposed to be.

POTUS & his entourage weren't actually at a Convention Center. They were at a real-life building, The Newseum. It's an interactive museum promoting free expression & the First Amendment to the US Constitution (the right to free speech), while tracing the evolution of communication.

At the time this episode was filmed, it was located in Rosslyn, Virginia (part of the Virginia suburbs in the metropolitan Washington, DC, area; as I remember, Rosslyn is also mentioned in the show in the aftermath of the shooting). It later moved to Washington, DC, where it remains today.

I'm not sure this is the right place for your post, necessarily (well, you asked). I'd have probably put it in the S1 thread or the All Episodes Discussion thread instead. It didn't really seem to me you were expressing an unpopular opinion.

Good points, but it really doesn't answer my original question: why bother with a lookout? Look out for what exactly, when the shooters could quite easily see their intended quarry? The only reason for the "lookout" being there was purely to give Gina a  heads-up, as well as giving us, the audience a feeling of unease. Other than that it was pretty pointless to my mind

And you're right: in hindsight I should have posed this question in the S1 thread -something I did consider originally but then posted here instead.

[burghgal]

Unpopular opinion,  I think:

I liked S7 (which I just watch for the first time) -- though I am just not a fan of Teri Polo, or her first lady character, not sure why it/she bugged me.  I don't like the "Meet the Parents" series ( a very unpopular opinion) so that may be it.

What also bugged me about S7 is that it should have been more realistic in the election and had Vinick (sp?) win.  The plant  meltdown storyline was a convenient contrivance and they should've found some other way to make it a close race, but one that ultimately went to the Republican.   Most of the big swings OH, VA, etc. at the time (circa 2004/2005) would've gone for the GOP moderate, especially after having had a Dem as president for 8 years.  Other than Regan/Bush (recently) it is rare to have a party stay in the Executive branch for more than 8 years (and especially without the ticket being the current VP) and that should've been reflected in a Vinick win.  I get that they didn't want to see the show's end to look like a "failure" with our heroes on the Bartlett team, but it was the more realistic political outcome that should've been shown.

[Guest]

@burghgal I read once (here maybe) that it is believed the plan was for a Vinick win, but John Spencer’s death changed that. They didn’t want Leo to lose the election.

[Moose135]

3 hours ago, deaja said:

@burghgal I read once (here maybe) that it is believed the plan was for a Vinick win, but John Spencer’s death changed that. They didn’t want Leo to lose the election.

That rumor pre-dates PTV, I probably first heard it on TWOP, but I don't know how much faith I'd put in it.

[Zola]

I adore S7 (and the latter half of S6 in respect to the electoral campaigns); but I too would have liked to have seen Vinick win given that he was a moderate republican that even Leo admitted would be incredibly difficult to beat. And the nuclear plant leak was as you say rather contrived and convenient in order to give Santos an advantage. 

The only observation I would make about Vinick winning would be his campaign staff - didn't like any of them other than for Bruno, Sheila and Bob Mayer; and neither did I like Vinick's choice of VP elect. 

As for the rumour regarding the writers' change of heart after the John's death and letting Santos win the Presidency; well from what I have read the writers had already decided that Santos was going to win right from the outset; but that Vinick would give him a run for his money right to the very end. There was also a suggestion that some of the writers wanted Vinick to win, but consensus and the subsequent death of John tipped the balance and that was that.

http://legendsrevealed.com/entertainment/2013/01/21/what-arnold-vinick-going-to-win-the-presidency-on-the-west-wing-before-john-spencers-untimely-death/

[wknt3]

On 7/19/2018 at 11:10 AM, burghgal said:

What also bugged me about S7 is that it should have been more realistic in the election and had Vinick (sp?) win.  The plant  meltdown storyline was a convenient contrivance and they should've found some other way to make it a close race, but one that ultimately went to the Republican.   Most of the big swings OH, VA, etc. at the time (circa 2004/2005) would've gone for the GOP moderate, especially after having had a Dem as president for 8 years.  Other than Regan/Bush (recently) it is rare to have a party stay in the Executive branch for more than 8 years (and especially without the ticket being the current VP) and that should've been reflected in a Vinick win.  I get that they didn't want to see the show's end to look like a "failure" with our heroes on the Bartlett team, but it was the more realistic political outcome that should've been shown.

You're probably right, but given recent history why hold the writers to a higher standard of realism than reality?

[Driad]

23 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

You're probably right, but given recent history why hold the writers to a higher standard of realism than reality?

There's a saying that the difference between fiction and reality is that people expect fiction to make sense.  Maybe with reality, we know better.  :-)

[burghgal]

Oh - I didn't think about John Spencer's passing as a reason for the/a twist and having a Santos win.  I did love Leo :-).  

I am trying to avoid reality-- its just too bizarre and recently, scary.  That's why I've been binging  "The West Wing" this Summer.  Of all the weeks to finish it, I got this one.  I'm now looking for another show that's fun, snarky, and thoughtful, but not "reality" tv.  I was thinking of trying to find "Murphy Brown" on reruns.

Another unpopular opinion I seem to have is....  I didn't think Mandy was all that bad in S1.

[katie9918]

I’ll go further than you. I LOVED Mandy. She was my favorite character in season 1, because she embodied some of what I’ve always seen as the ridiculousness of politics and she was the only one who OWNED it.

 

Even at the time, I thought she was the most down-to-earth, relatable character in a show full of pretentious, self-important snots, and I was always sorry she never came back. But I’m sure whatever Mandy wound up doing, she did it fabulously.

Edited July 21, 2018 by katie9918

[ProudMary]

22 minutes ago, katie9918 said:

I’ll go further than you. I LOVED Mandy. She was my favorite character in season 1, because she embodied some of what I’ve always seen as the ridiculousness of politics and she was the only one who OWNED it.

 

Even at the time, I thought she was the most down-to-earth, relatable character in a show full of pretentious, self-important snots, and I was always sorry she never came back. But I’m sure whatever Mandy wound up doing, she did it fabulously.

I think we can close the Unpopular Opinions' thread now.  :D

[Zola]

2 hours ago, katie9918 said:

I’ll go further than you. I LOVED Mandy. She was my favorite character in season 1, because she embodied some of what I’ve always seen as the ridiculousness of politics and she was the only one who OWNED it.

 

Even at the time, I thought she was the most down-to-earth, relatable character in a show full of pretentious, self-important snots, and I was always sorry she never came back. But I’m sure whatever Mandy wound up doing, she did it fabulously.

 

Well it's always good to hear an opposing view from the general consensus of a controversial character. And you do make a good point about her being more down to earth compared to the "elitists" and "feministas" (to quote Josh & CJ) that occupied the west wing. And I felt really sympathetic for her over the Russell Memo when CJ got on her highest of high horses and tore Mandy a new one, even though Mandy was just doing a good job revealing weaknesses in the Bartlet dynamic.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Zola

[BW Manilowe]

On 7/20/2018 at 6:15 AM, Zola said:

I adore S7 (and the latter half of S6 in respect to the electoral campaigns); but I too would have liked to have seen Vinick win given that he was a moderate republican that even Leo admitted would be incredibly difficult to beat. 

And Don't forget Donna. She also seemed to think Vinick would be hard to beat, if their eventual nominee had to run against him. When she & Josh were watching Vinick's Presidential campaign announcement, after listening to part of his speech Donna said something to Josh like, "You have 5 months (or however long it was until the election, at that point in the show's timeline) to convince me not to vote for him." This coming from a heretofore ardent Democrat.

The only observation I would make about Vinick winning would be his campaign staff - didn't like any of them other than for Bruno, Sheila and Bob Mayer; and neither did I like Vinick's choice of VP elect.

You know Bruno was originally a Democratic Campaign Strategist, who helped a lot on at least the 2nd Bartlet campaign, right? Bruno wasn't 1 of those characters who'd be whatever he had to be & do whatever he had to do, just to try to be on the winning side, either (changing parties may have made him look like that); his changing from being a Democratic Campaign Strategist to a Republican Campaign Strategist in the show was totally in line with the real-life political views, at the time, of the late Ron Silver, the actor who played the recurring character of Bruno Gianelli. Ron was among the (as I remember) few prominent real-life Liberal/Democratic Hollywood types who switched their political allegiance to the Republicans in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As Ron became a real Republican, so did Bruno.

[BW Manilowe]

12 hours ago, burghgal said:

Oh - I didn't think about John Spencer's passing as a reason for the/a twist and having a Santos win.  I did love Leo :-).  

I am trying to avoid reality-- its just too bizarre and recently, scary.  That's why I've been binging  "The West Wing" this Summer.  Of all the weeks to finish it, I got this one.  I'm now looking for another show that's fun, snarky, and thoughtful, but not "reality" tv.  I was thinking of trying to find "Murphy Brown" on reruns.

Another unpopular opinion I seem to have is....  I didn't think Mandy was all that bad in S1.

Does your TV provider carry AntennaTV? That's 1 of those cable channels that shows reruns of (mostly classic) TV shows (sitcoms plus episodes from the Johnny Carson-hosted era of The Tonight Show) & is usually carried as a digital subchannel of your local affiliate of 1 of the major broadcast networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox).

In most cities (except here, with our NBC affiliate), the major networks are at the (for example) ".0" position of your local digital channel numbers, with other, usually smaller & mostly cable-only, networks--like AntennaTV--in the positions starting at the (for example) ".1" position of your local digital channel numbers. For example, NBC would be at channel 13.0 on your digital TV box & AntennaTV would be at 13.1 (or 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, etc.) on your digital TV box. If it's carried at all where you live, it should also occupy at least 1 channel number on your cable TV/satellite TV provider.

Anyway, if you have AntennaTV, they're carrying what will soon be the "classic" version of Murphy Brown. At least it'll be the "classic" version of the show once the revival version of Murphy Brown starts airing on CBS on Thursday nights this fall. Murphy Brown airs on AntennaTV Monday-Friday nights at 11PM Eastern; Saturdays & Sundays at 5PM Eastern.

Edited July 22, 2018 by BW Manilowe
To add info.

[Zola]

3 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

 

Yes, I knew about Bruno (and Ron's) history, especially the latter because I was so impressed (or 'ensorcelled' as Josh would opine) with his Bruno character I had to look him up on IMDb and Wiki.

Clearly, Ron was a bit of a political and Hollywood maverick: I can't say I have seen many of his other films and tv rioles, but it seems to me Ron was born to play Bruno!

Am not sure which "Bruno" I preferred though - he was good when working with Leo/Bartlet, and I loved it when he slapped down arrogant Josh over Big Tobacco and the swing states. And then of course there was the mystery "dalliance" with Margaret - which never really went anywhere, although there might have been a hint when Margaret became pregnant in S7. Could Bruno have been the daddy?

And speaking of S7, I think I much preferred Bruno supporting Vinick: he seemed to come into his own, especially working with Sheila and Bob, while at the same time throwing a few more barbed gauntlets down at Josh's feet - totally unsettling the guy until Lou comes along and went head to head with Bruno - which was also great to see!

So yes, I loved Bruno, and I loved Ron for playing him. Although can I just ask: what accent does Bruno have?  (I ask - as a Brit - as it sounds far removed from most American accents I am used to hearing)

Edited July 22, 2018 by Zola

[BW Manilowe]

2 hours ago, Zola said:

Yes, I knew about Bruno (and Ron's) history, especially the latter because I was so impressed (or 'ensorcelled' as Josh would opine) with his Bruno character I had to look him up on IMDb and Wiki.

Clearly, Ron was a bit of a political and Hollywood maverick: I can't say I have seen many of his other films and tv rioles, but it seems to me Ron was born to play Bruno!

Am not sure which "Bruno" I preferred though - he was good when working with Leo/Bartlet, and I loved it when he slapped down arrogant Josh over Big Tobacco and the swing states. And then of course there was the mystery "dalliance" with Margaret - which never really went anywhere, although there might have been a hint when Margaret became pregnant in S7. Could Bruno have been the daddy?

And speaking of S7, I think I much preferred Bruno supporting Vinick: he seemed to come into his own, especially working with Sheila and Bob, while at the same time throwing a few more barbed gauntlets down at Josh's feet - totally unsettling the guy until Lou comes along and went head to head with Bruno - which was also great to see!

So yes, I loved Bruno, and I loved Ron for playing him. Although can I just ask: what accent does Bruno have?  (I ask - as a Brit - as it sounds far removed from most American accents I am used to hearing)

 

Ron's Wikipedia page says he was born in New York City; so he has a New York accent, in general. However, some New Yorkers also have accents more specific to what part (borough) of the city they're from.  

Edited July 22, 2018 by BW Manilowe
To change some wording and remove excessive boldface.

[caitmcg]

13 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

Ron's Wikipedia page says he was born in New York City; so he has a New York accent, in general. However, some New Yorkers also have accents more specific to what part (borough) of the city they're from.  

He really doesn't have a New York accent, and if Ron Silver ever spoke with an accent influenced by a specific Outer Boroughs neighborhood (and the way Bruno sounds sure doesn't resemble any I've heard), as someone working (and trying to get work) in film and television, he likely would have ditched it. Not all natives of NYC have discernible "New York" accents, even those of earlier generations, in my experience. As is often the case, there are various factors that contribute, including geography and socioeconomics. At any rate, his speech is somewhat sui generis to my American ears.

[BW Manilowe]

1 hour ago, caitmcg said:

He really doesn't have a New York accent, and if Ron Silver ever spoke with an accent influenced by a specific Outer Boroughs neighborhood (and the way Bruno sounds sure doesn't resemble any I've heard), as someone working (and trying to get work) in film and television, he likely would have ditched it. Not all natives of NYC have discernible "New York" accents, even those of earlier generations, in my experience. As is often the case, there are various factors that contribute, including geography and socioeconomics. At any rate, his speech is somewhat sui generis to my American ears.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. My American ears definitely think Ron Silver had at least traces of a "US regional" type accent when he spoke, though I will admit he was probably trying not to let it show too much so he would be able to play all different kinds of roles.

Kind of like Alex O'Loughlin & Beulah Koale (a male, not a female, despite the name), who are both on Hawaii Five-0. Alex is Australian & Beulah is a New Zealander. Their characters are Americans (& former Navy SEALs, to boot).

Admittedly, Alex's Australian accent has slipped out occasionally in an episode here or there (mostly in earlier seasons); but Beulah, who plays the new character of Junior Reigns, who just joined Five-0 this past season, sounds completely American (to me, anyway); I don't think I've heard his real accent slip out once in character. I've only heard his New Zealander accent in, like, video clips posted to his Social Media.

[caitmcg]

6 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

We may have to agree to disagree on this. My American ears definitely think Ron Silver had at least traces of a "US regional" type accent when he spoke, though I will admit he was probably trying not to let it show too much so he would be able to play all different kinds of roles.

He sounded Northeastern to me, but not as if he has a New York accent, based on my experience from living in NYC. And there were aspects of his inflection and manner of enunciation that are unlike anyone else I’ve heard, from anywhere in the country, and quite distinctive. (Incidentally, my mother, who grew up in and around NYC, is very keyed to the subtle differences between her pronunciation of vowels in certain words as a native of the Northeast and that of my brother and me, who grew up in California, but she does not now and has never had a “New York” accent.)

[Bastet]

12 hours ago, caitmcg said:

And there were aspects of his inflection and manner of enunciation that are unlike anyone else I’ve heard, from anywhere in the country, and quite distinctive.

Yeah, I would certainly say Ron Silver had a distinctive speech pattern, but not that he had a NY accent (or an accent strongly typical of any other city/region, either, but definitely not NY). 

[Zola]

13 hours ago, caitmcg said:

He sounded Northeastern to me, but not as if he has a New York accent, based on my experience from living in NYC. And there were aspects of his inflection and manner of enunciation that are unlike anyone else I’ve heard, from anywhere in the country, and quite distinctive. (Incidentally, my mother, who grew up in and around NYC, is very keyed to the subtle differences between her pronunciation of vowels in certain words as a native of the Northeast and that of my brother and me, who grew up in California, but she does not now and has never had a “New York” accent.)

I think that is precisely why I raised my original question: even to my British ears I could sometimes denote a slight New York/Brooklyn accent, but is enunciation & inflection was what threw me. It's a very distinctive accent albeit rather clipped and precise at times. My best YouTube example is this one (one of my favorites btw)

 

[caitmcg]

1 hour ago, Zola said:

I think that is precisely why I raised my original question: even to my British ears I could sometimes denote a slight New York/Brooklyn accent, but is enunciation & inflection was what threw me. It's a very distinctive accent albeit rather clipped and precise at times. My best YouTube example is this one (one of my favorites btw)

 

I do think that, in that clip, that his accent betrays more of a NY background  than it does elsewhere on TWW, thanks to his pronunciation of 'r'. Often his speech seems highly enunciated and and slightly clipped, which contributes to its distinctive cadence. It's not unusual for people to betray more of the regional accent of their childhoods when their voices are raised, however. 

Interestingly, per the Wikipedia entry BManilowe linked, Silver had a lot of language study under his belt, with a BA in Spanish and Chinese, and an MA in Chinese History; since he studied in Taiwan, he probably had proficiency in Mandarin at that point. From that entry:

Quote

Silver went on to graduate from the State University of New York at Buffalo,[4] with a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish and Chinese, and received a master's degree in Chinese History from St. John's University in New York and the Chinese Culture University in Taiwan. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by caitmcg

[heavysnaxx]

On 7/22/2018 at 3:17 PM, caitmcg said:

He really doesn't have a New York accent, and if Ron Silver ever spoke with an accent influenced by a specific Outer Boroughs neighborhood (and the way Bruno sounds sure doesn't resemble any I've heard), as someone working (and trying to get work) in film and television, he likely would have ditched it. Not all natives of NYC have discernible "New York" accents, even those of earlier generations, in my experience. As is often the case, there are various factors that contribute, including geography and socioeconomics. At any rate, his speech is somewhat sui generis to my American ears.

I'm from the tri-state area and I've never had a moment's doubt that Ron Silver is a New Yorker. It's all there in how he says, "Yorker," with an over-reach enunciation of "ork." No idea what borough but I'm guessing the Bronx. But that's always in combination with how he uses that to create Bruno's voice: a slowed-down fast-talking man, accustomed to giving orders, smart, impatient, educated but not from a wealthy background. Or so he sounds to me!

I liked Bruno Gianelli but OMG did Aaron Sorkin saddle him with the dumbshittiest of dumbshit things Aaron Sorkin male characters say: S3 CJ's walking by Bruno in the hall while Bruno's doing his patented Hanging Around in a Extremely Non-DC Kind of Suit and just as CJ is clearly distracted by some Important Political Thing, Bruno keeps his arms folded just so and gives her a mission-critical workplace tip:"You know you have a killer body, right?"

And instead of CJ responding like a normal colleague with, "I know where I'll be disposing of yours HAHAHAHA," Sorkin has her act like, NOPE NOTHING BIZARRO ABOUT HAVING HUGO BOSS LOOP ME IN ON HIS PERSONAL HOT/NOT WHILE I'M WORKIN' HERE.

On another topic: The actor (I use the term loosely) playing Jean-Luc Whatever is merde.

On another: Knowing that Otter became VP has always made me very happy.

Edited August 6, 2018 by heavysnaxx

[Bexx88]

I much preferred Sorkin's funny, capable and quietly clever Donna to the miserable, humourless and entitled SuperDonna of later seasons, who seemed unreasonably shocked that she couldn't just waltz into jobs she was supremely underqualified for and blamed everyone but herself for her own shortcomings. By the time she and Josh got together the writers and Janel's lifeless performance had basically eradicated any chemistry the characters had.

[Guest]

The Jackal is one of the top 5 out of place, cringeworthy moments of the entire show.

[ProudMary]

2 hours ago, deaja said:

The Jackal is one of the top 5 out of place, cringeworthy moments of the entire show.

I find it somewhat amusing, but I can absolutely see your POV also.  I'm not even sure it's an unpopular opinion.

[PeterPirate]

Something I posted for the show Orange Is The New Black: 

On 8/23/2018 at 5:28 PM, PeterPirate said:

Piper also reminds me of my favorite character from my favorite show, namely Amy Gardner from The West Wing.  Then again, most fans of that show can't stand her.  

[Mom2twoNonna2-3]

On 7/21/2018 at 11:05 AM, burghgal said:

Oh - I didn't think about John Spencer's passing as a reason for the/a twist and having a Santos win.  I did love Leo :-).  

I am trying to avoid reality-- its just too bizarre and recently, scary.  That's why I've been binging  "The West Wing" this Summer.  Of all the weeks to finish it, I got this one.  I'm now looking for another show that's fun, snarky, and thoughtful, but not "reality" tv.  I was thinking of trying to find "Murphy Brown" on reruns.

Another unpopular opinion I seem to have is....  I didn't think Mandy was all that bad in S1.

Try Newsroom on Prime Video if you have it. It's a Sorkin show that ran for 2 1/2 seasons (3rd season was 6 episodes I think). My husband walked in, heard the dialogue and knew it was from Sorkin due to my fanatical West Wing love. 20 years ago you would have been grounded (in fact my daughter was) for daring to mouth off and pick a fight on Wed. night. Hubby walked in on my rewatch last night and knew to hush it as soon as he saw what was on. We have set, firm rules in our house...DO NOT INTERRUPT MOMMA WHEN WW IS ON!!!

[Mom2twoNonna2-3]

Quote

 I felt like Donna was just personally annoyed with hearing the same debate on messaging all day in close quarters while Josh/Toby were not helpful in the logistics in traveling because they're childish that way. Which is fair enough. But she felt the need to elevate her smackdown by accusing Josh and Toby of being assholes to the Hoosiers or out of touch with small-town America or something. It reminded me of CJ volunteering her resignation as a sacrificial lamb after the scandal Jed created and Jed trying to recover by his moral high ground by responding to her communications-analysis with a statistics-laden unresponsive rant on poverty in America. Josh and Toby should have similarly addressed the heart of irrelevant sanctimony with "Don't lecture us" as CJ did.  

I've had a hard time imagining them in Indiana since I found out the train scene is from SW PA. In fact, the street where the train departs from was flooded in June. The businesses on that road are still trying to recover. A restaurant on the corner employs my SIL as chef and it's still under reconstruction. 

[Mom2twoNonna2-3]

On 3/19/2017 at 10:52 PM, PepperMonkey said:

Toby and the twins at age 55 or whatever. Gawd. I know this was probably one of the first shows to do this but I'm so tired of that story line. They make these people act like they are going to DIE if they do not procreate. I have 2 kids of my own and I like kids just fine, but not everyone on the effing face of the planet has to have 2 OR MORE kids. Overpopulation is one of my hot buttons anyway, but maybe it's because where I currently live, everyone has 5 or more children and still breeding. Just stop it. Stop it now. Loss of habitat is why the bees are dying.

I'm watching 3;20 Enemies Foreign and Domestic. Toby tells the Russian journalist he's 44.

[PeterPirate]

16 hours ago, Mom2twoNonna2one said:

I'm watching 3;20 Enemies Foreign and Domestic. Toby tells the Russian journalist he's 44.

In Holy Night we learn that Toby was born on or about Christmas of 1954, which would make him 47 when Enemies Foreign and Domestic aired. 

This, of course, is yet another example of a Sorkin discontinuity, which back in the day we called a Sorkinuity.  I've come to believe that Sorkin created discontinuities on purpose so he could tell fans who noticed such things that his job was not to tell the truth, but merely to entertain them.  And then go write an episode comparing such viewers to lunatics who wore Star Trek tchotchke to work.  

Edited August 31, 2018 by PeterPirate