PDA

View Full Version : West Wing Cancelled


jb007
01-22-2006, 02:44 PM
NBC announced today The West Wing will end its 7 year run in May.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_west_wing

cheerdude
01-22-2006, 02:46 PM
Wow... didn't know that the ratings weren't doing so good - but I figured that it was going to be interesting to see what the show did after the election.

jb007
01-22-2006, 02:50 PM
The article states the decision was made prior to John Spencer (Leo McGarry) passing.

At least NBC was kind enough to give us notice. We will know who the new president will be (unlike FOX, with Reunion, John Doe, etc., etc.)

The article also says Law & Order will be moved to 9:00 p.m., directly competing with Lost. Ouch, Dick Wolfe must be furious with that move :( .

ToddAtl
01-22-2006, 02:51 PM
this seems like an odd time to announce this, now why should I care who wins the election and watch the rest of the season? there's no point to it anymore if there is no chance we would have had a new president next season...

murgatroyd
01-22-2006, 02:57 PM
Once the West Wing is gone, the only SPs I'll have for shows on NBC will be for Sports.

Not that this is news -- when they moved WW to Sunday, I knew it was the beginnig of the end.

But this must be sad for the cast and crew. :(

Jan

Mr. Soze
01-22-2006, 03:23 PM
Once the West Wing is gone, the only SPs I'll have for shows on NBC will be for SportsWhen West Wing is gone, there will only be Scrubs.

dswallow
01-22-2006, 03:27 PM
What I currently watch on NBC (in order of personal preference):

The West Wing
Surface
E-Ring
Las Vegas
Four Kings (very, very close to dumping it)

It's definitely not a very strong lineup at the moment.

RegBarc
01-22-2006, 05:07 PM
Upsetting, but inevitable. :(

hawkamer
01-22-2006, 05:13 PM
I'm very sorry to see the show go, but I'm glad they are going to wrap things up.

Season 5 was a total train wreck, but I think they recovered extremley well in the last 2 seasons.

Since it doesn't matter, I'm now rooting for Vinick as president!

AnotherWin95
01-22-2006, 05:16 PM
This is a shame - a good show.

jehma
01-22-2006, 05:18 PM
this seems like an odd time to announce this, now why should I care who wins the election and watch the rest of the season? there's no point to it anymore if there is no chance we would have had a new president next season...

Bummer.

It's really hard to care about the election now.

edc
01-22-2006, 05:43 PM
this seems like an odd time to announce this, now why should I care who wins the election and watch the rest of the season? there's no point to it anymore if there is no chance we would have had a new president next season...

The point is to watch the end of the Bartlet administration, and to get at least a glimpse of the future for these characters. Moving forward with most of the original cast gone, and Alda or Smits as the lead was always a dicey proposition.

As to "why announce now," they hope word will get out, and the old-time fans will tune-in for the final March-May run.

I'm disappointed, in that intelligent television is going away, but it does give a chance for the WW actors to return in regular or recurring roles on Sorkin's new show.

dtivouser
01-22-2006, 06:34 PM
Heck, I can remember when The West Wing was actually set in the West Wing, you know with that guy Bartlet who is the POTUS on the show. All we've seen for two years is an election with characters I don't really care about. It's no surprise that the show is being cancelled, it has been pretty awful since Sorkin left.

alpacaboy
01-22-2006, 07:46 PM
Since it doesn't matter, I'm now rooting for Vinick as president!

Well, if it doesn't matter, then I'm going to hope for a write-in for Donatella Moss - and yes, just because she's cute.

Graymalkin
01-22-2006, 07:49 PM
Haven't watched it since middle of last season, other than the "live" debate. So I'm not going to miss it too much.

I still watch plenty of NBC, though -- the three L&O shows, Crossing Jordan, Surface, Las Vegas, Medium, and E-Ring. The only one that gets watched before any other network, though, is Las Vegas, which is my favorite guilty pleasure. I don't watch any of NBC's reality shows or sitcoms.

Graymalkin
01-22-2006, 08:00 PM
In other news, Las Vegas will be moved from Monday to the Friday graveyard. Looks like somebody at NBC has decided the show's just too silly to live anymore. :(

murgatroyd
01-22-2006, 08:01 PM
It's definitely not a very strong lineup at the moment.

I doubt I'm in their target audience.

It seems I'm rarely in anyone's target audience. :(

Jan

dswallow
01-22-2006, 08:02 PM
In other news, Las Vegas will be moved from Monday to the Friday graveyard. Looks like somebody at NBC has decided the show's just too silly to live anymore. :(
So there is at least one smart person left at the network. That's good to hear. ;)

Peter000
01-22-2006, 08:07 PM
That's too bad. The show was really getting some life back into it this season... I've enjoyed it as much as in it's first season.

I'll be really interested to see who wins the election, even though it "doesn't make a difference." Maybe we'll see some WW TV movies with the new administration. :)

What's Sorkin's new show?

ncsercs
01-22-2006, 08:56 PM
The "Left" Wing won't be missed...................

At least you have "Commander In Chief" a.k.a. "Hillary's Wet Dream" and "Wishful Thinking of the Democrats" :D

IJustLikeTivo
01-22-2006, 08:57 PM
Ok, I get that the suits at NBC have screwed the show by one too many moves but now they appear to be throwing Joey away as well.

Didn't it get an early renewal already and now it is not on the schedule? For what? Four kings? That was such a dog I couldn't even get through the second episode without deleting it.

These guys need to phone a friend, get a 50/50 or at least pay attention to the audience polls since it is pretty clear they haven't got a clue.

Maui
01-22-2006, 09:13 PM
I will miss the show. It's been better this season and it was very good tonight.

And now I must go search for the favorite shows of those who have decided to rejoice and gloat over the cancellation in this thread. I would not want to miss the opportunity to return the favor and jump up and down on the graves of their favorites when they get cancelled.

edc
01-22-2006, 09:43 PM
What's Sorkin's new show?

"Studio 7 on the Sunset Strip"

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/14950/

Imagine "Sports Night," except an hour long, and at an SNL-ish show.

coolpenguin
01-22-2006, 09:47 PM
Best episode ever-I believe Season One-Mr Willis of Ohio. Maybe cause I was in college working on my Politics degree, but I LOVED and still Love it. Will miss the show although I haven't watched in several years.

Dmon4u
01-23-2006, 12:17 AM
With football coming to NBC on Sunday next Fall, major scheduling changes and the dumping of shows was inevitable.

From Sunday's:

West Wing gone.

L&O:CI - probably still alive, but where ?

Crossing Jordan - a place for this since it's ratings are slipping year after year ?

mrpantstm
01-23-2006, 01:42 AM
actually pretty glad. The past season has really let me down and I'm pretty dissappointed with the direction of the show. I do think it makes sense to end the series after Bartlet's two terms.

modnar
01-23-2006, 07:27 AM
I just heard this on this radio this morning. This has definitely been a great show. I'd say it's probably one of my favorite television dramas of all time. The entire series has been excellent, with some of the best episodes being in the first few and last few seasons.

I guess I'll have to settle for Commander in Chief for my presidentail drama, although it pales in comparison to The West Wing.

Hats off to the writers, cast, crew, etc. for their excellent work!

newsposter
01-23-2006, 07:43 AM
Heck, I can remember when The West Wing was actually set in the West Wing, you know with that guy Bartlet who is the POTUS on the show. All we've seen for two years is an election with characters I don't really care about.


AMEN!


and I guess those who aren't fans of CiC will be forced to get their fix there. I'm betting CiC will make it at least another season. It fits in with abc family themes.

I wonder why they wanna kill las vegas? Very colorful show with cool off the wall plot lines.

and isn't apprentice to mondays a demotion? I thought thursday was the best night of tv for the studios.

twm01
01-23-2006, 08:38 AM
I will miss the show. It's been better this season and it was very good tonight.

And now I must go search for the favorite shows of those who have decided to rejoice and gloat over the cancellation in this thread. I would not want to miss the opportunity to return the favor and jump up and down on the graves of their favorites when they get cancelled.

Ha! Excellent!!!

TiVo'Brien
01-23-2006, 09:01 AM
Now if they could only put ER out of its misery.

newsposter
01-23-2006, 09:50 AM
Now if they could only put ER out of its misery.


ER is nbc's 7th Heaven. Same story over and over again. The difference is, 7th heaven has many original cast members where ER gets new ones, presumably cheaper, all the time.

kpurcell
01-23-2006, 11:27 AM
I'm a right wing conservative who makes Pat Robertson look like Ted Kennedy and WW is IMO the best show to ever grace the TV screen. Number 2 ... MASH. Maybe I'm a closet liberal.

aindik
01-23-2006, 12:57 PM
Here's an article from CNN about the cancellation. It contains some spoilers or possible spoilers, but nothing major like who wins the election.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/23/west.wing.canceled.ap/index.html

Here are the spoilers/possible spoilers
It's been tricky working the death into the story line; McGarry was a candidate for vice president, and producers found there was no constitutional provision for what happens when a candidate dies so close to the election.

"We're now dealing with the death of a character we loved after having dealt with the death of a person we loved," Wells said.

...

Producers are negotiating the return of Rob Lowe, the early series star who left because he was upset by his diminished role, for the finale.

murgatroyd
01-23-2006, 01:13 PM
I will miss the show. It's been better this season and it was very good tonight.

And now I must go search for the favorite shows of those who have decided to rejoice and gloat over the cancellation in this thread. I would not want to miss the opportunity to return the favor and jump up and down on the graves of their favorites when they get cancelled.

May I join you?

Jan (sick of threadcrappers)

dswallow
01-23-2006, 01:19 PM
Producers are negotiating the return of Rob Lowe, the early series star who left because he was upset by his diminished role, for the finale.
That would be awesome news if it happens.

aindik
01-23-2006, 01:21 PM
That would be awesome news if it happens.

It would.

He could end up Vice President

edc
01-23-2006, 01:36 PM
It would.

He could end up Vice President

Please, no.


I'd love to see Rob Lowe back (although he's already said no at least once), but assuming Sam lost the "Will Bailey" election, he has yet to prove himself as any kind of politician. You don't just throw the guy into the office of VP. A more suitable ending would be for Sam to be part of Leo's funeral, and then maybe take over Toby's job in the Santos administration.

MerlinMacuser
01-23-2006, 01:39 PM
Actually they could follow in the footsteps of other hit shows and continue with a spinoff but in a different milieu. Joey and Friends were both comedys but what about a reverse Lou Grant:Mary ? It would go something like this...

Vinick gets elected but has a stroke and becomes such a bumbler he has to hire Donna to help him around in the White House. Bruno becomes the press secretary and spends his time on the podium asking Seinfeld type questions like. "have you ever noticed how nobody calls the commander-in-chief, 'Chief'? Why is that?" Donna spends all day pushing Vinick's wheelchair and sighing...the Prez keeps forgetting who he's talking to on the phone and almost starts wars in each episode....Joey makes a cameo as the president's nephew...

This is silly, I know, but sometimes I overreact to bad news. The West Wing is/was the best thing on TV ever...this is a sad day for TV.

aindik
01-23-2006, 01:47 PM
Please, no.


I'd love to see Rob Lowe back (although he's already said no at least once), but assuming Sam lost the "Will Bailey" election, he has yet to prove himself as any kind of politician. You don't just throw the guy into the office of VP. A more suitable ending would be for Sam to be part of Leo's funeral, and then maybe take over Toby's job in the Santos administration.


Of course, we can't assume he lost that election. If he had, wouldn't he have gone back to working in the White House? The President offered him a promotion (in case he lost) when they hired Will to take his place.

frombhto323
01-23-2006, 01:51 PM
I've always found it curious that those of a conservative bent would bash this show, when in actuality it often treated the issues on both sides of the debate with more respect and honesty than most of the so-called news shows of today.

I am wistful about its pending demise for this reason more than any. Good that it is wrapping up on a positive note, though. At least they are not canceling after Season 5.

busyba
01-23-2006, 01:59 PM
I've always found it curious that those of a conservative bent would bash this show, when in actuality it often treated the issues on both sides of the debate with more respect and honesty than most of the so-called news shows of today.
It's because extremists (on either end of the spectrum) generally tend to be intolerant of those who are willing to be reasonable and see both sides of an argument.

"Either you are with us, or you are against us." :rolleyes:

newsposter
01-23-2006, 06:32 PM
Well at least some of my desired/predicted things for a finale may come true :)

coolpenguin
01-23-2006, 09:05 PM
If that person comes back, I will be SUPER excited!

JustAllie
01-23-2006, 11:11 PM
I will miss the show. It's been better this season and it was very good tonight.

And now I must go search for the favorite shows of those who have decided to rejoice and gloat over the cancellation in this thread. I would not want to miss the opportunity to return the favor and jump up and down on the graves of their favorites when they get cancelled.Maui for President! :up: :up: :up:

In its heydey, The West Wing was the best written show on TV, bar none. It's still excellent, although Sorkin's gift for dialogue is sorely missed.

It was a great run, and I feel like the show made me think while at the same time touching me emotionally -- often by pointing out the plight of a downtrodden group, or the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform.

RIP, West Wing. :(

At least we have more episodes to look forward to before it's completely gone.

weymo
01-24-2006, 09:04 PM
I will miss this show. Yeah, it's had spotty successes but I like how the storylines somewhat reflect the goings-on in the world. For instance, the meltdown storyline paralleled some of the difficulties of a large-scale disaster like the Gulf hurricanes were. It also reflected how the White House has to juggle several major crises at once.
But, like any comfortable pair of shoes, eventually they have to go once they are worn out and full of holes.

DevdogAZ
01-24-2006, 09:22 PM
Another conservative here who thought this was the best show on TV, ever. I wasn't offended by the liberal views, but rather was appreciative of the way they dealt with both sides of the issues, even though they usually chose the opposite side of what I would have chosen. That wasn't really the point. The point was the wonderful dialouge and insightful treatment of the issues from multiple viewpoints. While the show has gotten better since Season 5, this facet is still sorely missed and could never be duplicated without Sorkin.

bengalfreak
01-25-2006, 06:48 AM
What I currently watch on NBC (in order of personal preference):

The West Wing
Surface
E-Ring
Las Vegas
Four Kings (very, very close to dumping it)

It's definitely not a very strong lineup at the moment.


Come on. SVU is by far their best show.

bengalfreak
01-25-2006, 06:50 AM
I just heard this on this radio this morning. This has definitely been a great show. I'd say it's probably one of my favorite television dramas of all time. The entire series has been excellent, with some of the best episodes being in the first few and last few seasons.

I guess I'll have to settle for Commander in Chief for my presidentail drama, although it pales in comparison to The West Wing.

Hats off to the writers, cast, crew, etc. for their excellent work!

In case you haven't heard, CiC is in trouble too.

bicker
01-25-2006, 07:24 AM
this seems like an odd time to announce this, now why should I care who wins the election and watch the rest of the season? there's no point to it anymore if there is no chance we would have had a new president next season...I don't feel that way at all. The fact that show is coming to an end affects my interest in the current storyline not-at-all, given that they've promised that they will finish this storyline. If anything, that promise, alone, will ensure I keep watching for the rest of the season.

It seems I'm rarely in anyone's target audience.It seems that I'm almost always in the target audience.

iceturkee
01-25-2006, 11:03 AM
now, if they could get csi:miami to loan them emily procter for the final episodes, i'd be really excited. i revisited some of the season 2 ainsley episodes this weekend and i realized how much i enjoyed her on this show. if vinnick gets elected, maybe, ainsley could go to work for him!!

anyhow, i will miss this show a lot. thank goodness for dvd sets!!!!

peacefield
01-25-2006, 11:12 AM
I was saddened to hear about WW's cancellation, but like others, I was not surprised. I have only been a serious fan of the show for about a year and have spent the past months getting caught up on all the goings-on (thank you Bravo). Thank goodness too for most of the DVDs, of which I still need 4 & 5 - they will keep me content for awhile :)

I'm of the right-leaning persuasion as well, and this has been one of my favorite shows. I avoided it up until last year because I thought it was just going to be a conservative bashing machine, but that's the last thing that's been done on this show. There are comments every once in awhile, but for the most part it's very intellegent.

My one and only wish for the WW before it signs off for good, please have Josh and Donna finally get together!!

newsposter
01-25-2006, 11:29 AM
please have Josh and Donna finally get together!!

I don't think Malcolm's mom would appreciate that ;)

modnar
01-25-2006, 12:22 PM
In case you haven't heard, CiC is in trouble too.
I hadn't heard, but I guess it shouldn't surpise me too much. However, it seems like the last I heard was that the ratings were doing well, and that surprised me.

madscientist
01-25-2006, 09:13 PM
I'm a lefty for the most part (esp. socially), but I also liked the way they played more-or-less straight with the conservatives. Quite often they were able to argue the White House staff into the turf (although many of those arguments were, IMO, refutable). It always pisses me off when shows create straw-man conservatives that are easy to knock down (and same with liberals, of course). If it were really so simple there wouldn't be such controversy, correct? It all starts with a very basic, fundamental outlook on life, and from there you can very logically arrive at different positions, and I think WW was able to show that much better than I expected.

bengalfreak
01-26-2006, 06:36 AM
I hadn't heard, but I guess it shouldn't surpise me too much. However, it seems like the last I heard was that the ratings were doing well, and that surprised me.


Since returning from holiday hiatus, the ratings have been much worse. In fact, it has made the chopping block category in this thread on this same forum:

Cancelled - Moved - Replacement list (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=254181&page=1&pp=30)

newsposter
01-26-2006, 08:35 AM
I'm a lefty .

Well since I wont have these wonderful west wing threads anymore to learn from after May, I'd like to take this time to ask what all these terms are. What's a lefty? Obviously one of the parties but I hate politics and try to stay uninformed (yet am drawn to political shows it appears lol). I have felt out of the loop all these years while you guys all fought about left right and mentioned other terms which I had no clue about. So now I want to learn so I can decode what you all were talking about :)

Jonathan_S
01-26-2006, 11:00 AM
Well since I wont have these wonderful west wing threads anymore to learn from after May, I'd like to take this time to ask what all these terms are. What's a lefty? Obviously one of the parties but I hate politics and try to stay uninformed (yet am drawn to political shows it appears lol). I have felt out of the loop all these years while you guys all fought about left right and mentioned other terms which I had no clue about. So now I want to learn so I can decode what you all were talking about :)Basically:
The left is liberals, in the US usually Democrats.
The right is conservatives, in the US usually Republicans.

As this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Left-Right_politics/Archive_1) shows, you can blame left left wing vs. right wing terms in politics on the French. :)

busyba
01-26-2006, 01:11 PM
What's a lefty?
Basically:
The left is liberals, in the US usually Democrats.
The right is conservatives, in the US usually Republicans.

Also, a lefty is someone who predominantly performs tasks with their left hand and a righty is someone who predominantly performs tasks with their right hand.

As an interesting and realted aside, I do almost everything with my right hand, but the only thing I do primarily with my left hand is masturbate, and that is fairly well analogous to my political leanings as I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. :D

newsposter
01-26-2006, 02:32 PM
Basically:
The left is liberals, in the US usually Democrats.
The right is conservatives, in the US usually Republicans.

As this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Left-Right_politics/Archive_1) shows, you can blame left left wing vs. right wing terms in politics on the French. :)

Ok thanks, didn't read the article yet but wondering, does everyone in the USA fit into one of these 2 categories? In other words, could i be one of them without knowing it or what they are? Or is there a 3rd category I dont know about?

or do you have to do something to be called right/left? what a fascinating subject and terms therein.

edc
01-26-2006, 03:01 PM
Ok thanks, didn't read the article yet but wondering, does everyone in the USA fit into one of these 2 categories? In other words, could i be one of them without knowing it or what they are? Or is there a 3rd category I dont know about?

or do you have to do something to be called right/left? what a fascinating subject and terms therein.

To a certain extent, the "conservative" or "liberal" tags come from the fact there are two, and only two parties that realistically have a chance of winning, so one needs to be allied with one or the other to have any significant political power. Many people have leanings on one issue or the other that is not identical to the party platform.

To bring things back to the topic at hand, the current "West Wing" election is attempting to show that even candidates for President can have a bit of both sides. In order to win, one needs to temper their view(s) for their constituents.

Santos is a Catholic, and believes life begins at conception. The stereotypical Democrat (leftist, liberal) view is that it is a woman's choice, and abortions should be not just allowed, but a viable choice up to the third trimester.

Similarly, the stereotypical Republican (right-winger, conservative) cowtows to religious elements within his party on many issues, both social and international. Vinick may have beliefs, but he is shown as not attending church regularly, and not one to allow himself to be bullied by "certain people," just because they are ordained.

busyba
01-26-2006, 03:04 PM
Ok thanks, didn't read the article yet but wondering, does everyone in the USA fit into one of these 2 categories? In other words, could i be one of them without knowing it or what they are? Or is there a 3rd category I dont know about?
Some think that the world is black and white, in which case there is no third category.

I prefer to recognize shades of grey.

dswallow
01-26-2006, 03:28 PM
Some think that the world is black and white, in which case there is no third category.

I prefer to recognize shades of grey.
But shades of gray has something of an expectation of there being a linear scale between two extremes. It's much more complex than that.

I prefer to recognize shades of the rainbow.

Which also has some cute double meanings. :)

newsposter
01-26-2006, 03:29 PM
Some think that the world is black and white, in which case there is no third category.

I prefer to recognize shades of grey.

I prefer to be different anyway. Make me grey please. ("centered" for all you righty/lefty folks)

Sparty99
01-26-2006, 03:42 PM
Ok thanks, didn't read the article yet but wondering, does everyone in the USA fit into one of these 2 categories? In other words, could i be one of them without knowing it or what they are? Or is there a 3rd category I dont know about?

or do you have to do something to be called right/left? what a fascinating subject and terms therein.
One of the big issues on Commander in Chief is not just that the president is a woman, but also an independent (i.e., not aligned with either the left or right). She was chosen as a vice presidential candidate to appease female voters, and she assumed the presidency when the Republican (righty) president died. The show's producers have already begun examining the challenges that will be faced by an independent running for the highest political office in the land. Now that West Wing is over, you may want to tune in.

busyba
01-26-2006, 03:48 PM
I prefer to recognize shades of the rainbow.
Rainbows. I hate those things.

You'll just be sitting there, minding your own business, and they'll come, marching in and crawl up your leg and start biting the inside of your ass. And you'll be all like, "Hey! Get out of my ass you stupid rainbows!!!"

dswallow
01-26-2006, 04:01 PM
Rainbows. I hate those things.

You'll just be sitting there, minding your own business, and they'll come, marching in and crawl up your leg and start biting the inside of your ass. And you'll be all like, "Hey! Get out of my ass you stupid rainbows!!!"
We need a smiley with one eyebrow raised and a questioning, somewhat dumbfounded look. :)

DevdogAZ
01-26-2006, 04:07 PM
Ok thanks, didn't read the article yet but wondering, does everyone in the USA fit into one of these 2 categories? In other words, could i be one of them without knowing it or what they are? Or is there a 3rd category I dont know about?

or do you have to do something to be called right/left? what a fascinating subject and terms therein.
I would venture to guess that very few people actually agree with all the platforms of any particular party. Therefore, they simply pick the party that they agree with the most. As far as whether everyone fits into these classifications, I don't think they do at all. It's been said that maybe 20-30% truly fit into each of the right and left classifications and the remaining 40-60% fall somewhere in the middle. This is why, in presidential elections, the candidates have to skew far to the extremes in order to win the nomination of their party but then they have to move to the middle in order to win the national election.

busyba
01-26-2006, 04:10 PM
We need a smiley with one eyebrow raised and a questioning, somewhat dumbfounded look. :)
South Park reference (http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/South-Park-Weight-gain-4000.html) :D

Bananfish
01-26-2006, 04:27 PM
One of the big issues on Commander in Chief is not just that the president is a woman, but also an independent (i.e., not aligned with either the left or right). She was chosen as a vice presidential candidate to appease female voters, and she assumed the presidency when the Republican (righty) president died. The show's producers have already begun examining the challenges that will be faced by an independent running for the highest political office in the land. Now that West Wing is over, you may want to tune in.

I've tried watching Commander In Chief with my wife. Frankly, the show is so schmaltzy and trite, especially in comparison to The West Wing, that we just end up in hysterical giggles a half dozen times per show. If you're looking for a show to assume the West Wing mantle, CIC ain't it. (It would be like John Tesh assuming the mantle for the Grateful Dead.)

yostmatt
01-26-2006, 04:55 PM
Now if they could only put ER out of its misery.

No kidding! CBS needs to put NCIS down!

edc
01-26-2006, 05:25 PM
One of the big issues on Commander in Chief is not just that the president is a woman, but also an independent [...] The show's producers have already begun examining the challenges that will be faced by an independent running for the highest political office in the land. Now that West Wing is over, you may want to tune in.

Unfortunately, the show's producers are not doing that job particularly realistically.

Should the show last long enough, my guess is the Geena Davis character will end up a Democrat

madscientist
01-26-2006, 05:39 PM
Also, a lefty is someone who predominantly performs tasks with their left hand and a righty is someone who predominantly performs tasks with their right hand.Hey, I'm a lefty that way too!

... I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. :DSee, I don't know what that means anymore. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative as well. In fact I don't know anyone who would consider themselves "fiscally liberal": what does that mean; you like to give money to pork projects? However, I vote Democratic virtually all the time because the Replicans, these days, seem to be socially conservative and fiscally, if not liberal, then at the very least darn irresponsible! The worst of all possible worlds. The only people in government these days that seem to be talking sense, fiscally speaking, are the Democrats--we're in bizarro land now!! The Dem candidates are certainly nothing special, but since I have to choose I'm definitely picking the lesser evil. Ah well. Paul Tsongas, RIP. We hardly knew ye.

aindik
01-26-2006, 06:22 PM
Hey, I'm a lefty that way too!

See, I don't know what that means anymore. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative as well. In fact I don't know anyone who would consider themselves "fiscally liberal": what does that mean; you like to give money to pork projects?

"Fiscally liberal" means one believes in high taxation on the rich, and redistributive programs such as welfare, food stamps, and other social programs. Fiscally liberal also includes heavy doses of government regulation of the economy.

JTAnderson
01-26-2006, 06:47 PM
Replicans
I think that's spelled Replicants.

bengalfreak
01-26-2006, 06:57 PM
No kidding! CBS needs to put NCIS down!


Uh....No

bengalfreak
01-26-2006, 06:59 PM
"Fiscally liberal" means one believes in high taxation on the rich, and redistributive programs such as welfare, food stamps, and other social programs. Fiscally liberal also includes heavy doses of government regulation of the economy.


Wow, how unbelievably simplistic. Especially since the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans are attempting to spend us into the poor house.

aindik
01-26-2006, 07:03 PM
Wow, how unbelievably simplistic. Especially since the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans are attempting to spend us into the poor house.

Supposedly, but not actually. Is that somehow not what the term means, to you?

modnar
01-26-2006, 07:31 PM
I've tried watching Commander In Chief with my wife. Frankly, the show is so schmaltzy and trite, especially in comparison to The West Wing, that we just end up in hysterical giggles a half dozen times per show. If you're looking for a show to assume the West Wing mantle, CIC ain't it. (It would be like John Tesh assuming the mantle for the Grateful Dead.)
"schmaltzy and trite" is probably a good way to describe CiC. For some reason, I still watch it, but the way things take place just seem so unrealistic compared to The West Wing. I'm not saying that the way things occur on WW, such as interactions between the President and advisors, are more accurate to the real White House, but I believe it more than on CiC (or 24 for that matter).

madscientist
01-26-2006, 07:50 PM
I think that's spelled Replicants.Heh. That was totally unintentional (subconscious much?). I saw it after I posted and was going to fix it, but... :p

madscientist
01-26-2006, 08:08 PM
"Fiscally liberal" means one believes in high taxation on the rich, and redistributive programs such as welfare, food stamps, and other social programs. Fiscally liberal also includes heavy doses of government regulation of the economy.Hm. Well, if you change that to higher taxation on the rich (in other words, a so-called progressive tax scale such as the one we have today rather than regressive or flat taxes), along with basic social safety nets of some sort, then I guess I'm a fiscal liberal as well. On the other hand, I'm a fiscal conservative if you follow Wikipedia's definition: "Fiscal conservatism is not a political philosophy, and more a tradition of prudence in government spending and debt." Oddly enough I don't see anything inherently contradictory in those positions.

As best as I can tell today, the major difference between the fiscal policy of the conservative party (Republicans) and liberal party (Democrats) seems to be not so much how much money they spend (I'm sure we can all agree there's not very much classical fiscal conservatism being demonstrated by the Republicans in the federal government these days) but rather what they want to spend the money on. I personally disagree with the theory of "trickle-down economics" and think it's quite obviously flawed and a proven loser... so that says something about my views on where the government should spend money, I suppose.

aindik
01-26-2006, 08:51 PM
Hm. Well, if you change that to higher taxation on the rich (in other words, a so-called progressive tax scale such as the one we have today rather than regressive or flat taxes), along with basic social safety nets of some sort, then I guess I'm a fiscal liberal as well. On the other hand, I'm a fiscal conservative if you follow Wikipedia's definition: "Fiscal conservatism is not a political philosophy, and more a tradition of prudence in government spending and debt." Oddly enough I don't see anything inherently contradictory in those positions.

As best as I can tell today, the major difference between the fiscal policy of the conservative party (Republicans) and liberal party (Democrats) seems to be not so much how much money they spend (I'm sure we can all agree there's not very much classical fiscal conservatism being demonstrated by the Republicans in the federal government these days) but rather what they want to spend the money on. I personally disagree with the theory of "trickle-down economics" and think it's quite obviously flawed and a proven loser... so that says something about my views on where the government should spend money, I suppose.

I think we can all agree that there isn't much fiscal conservatism in Washington today on either side of the aisle. But fiscal conservatism isn't just against government waste, it's against much of government spending. And "trickle down" has zero to do with government spending money. It has to do with goernment not taxing, and not spending, money.

busyba
01-26-2006, 10:10 PM
"Fiscally liberal" means one believes in high taxation on the rich, and redistributive programs such as welfare, food stamps, and other social programs. Fiscally liberal also includes heavy doses of government regulation of the economy.
Or, to put it in sound-bite form, "Tax and Spend"

Wow, how unbelievably simplistic. Especially since the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans are attempting to spend us into the poor house.
That's more like "Borrow and Spend" or "Spend and let the next administration (or generation) worry about getting the money for it". :D

bicker
01-27-2006, 04:46 AM
I would venture to guess that very few people actually agree with all the platforms of any particular party. Therefore, they simply pick the party that they agree with the most.If only that were true... Rather, I believe most people simply pick the party that they disagree with the least, or at least the party for which they acknowledge and recognize that they disagree with it the least. The end-result, therefore, is that a lot of folks choose the party that they actually have more philosophical differences with, but those differences aren't within the realm of the major hot-button issues of the day, those that are well-publicized.

newsposter
01-27-2006, 09:17 AM
If you choose not to decide have you still made a choice? :)

busyba
01-27-2006, 11:23 AM
If only that were true... Rather, I believe most people simply pick the party that they disagree with the least, or at least the party for which they acknowledge and recognize that they disagree with it the least.
They pick the party that panders to them the best.

frombhto323
01-27-2006, 05:42 PM
I think we can all agree that there isn't much fiscal conservatism in Washington today on either side of the aisle. But fiscal conservatism isn't just against government waste, it's against much of government spending. And "trickle down" has zero to do with government spending money. It has to do with goernment not taxing, and not spending, money.

The author of trickle-down economics, David Stockman, has since discredited the theory as inherently flawed. The flaw in the theory is the assumption that the upper economic classes, having received additional cash flow in the form of tax cuts, will put that additional cash flow into the nation's economy by spending it.

What actually happens for the most part, according to Stockman, is that the recipients of the tax cuts will save the money, in one way or another, thereby taking that money out of circulation. Hence, no trickling down occurs.

Critics, before and after the fact, deride the theory as a ruse for giving fat cats big tax cuts while selling the middle class on the idea. In both its current version and as it was implemented during the Reagon adminstration, huge federal deficits are an unfortunate byproduct.

aindik
01-27-2006, 05:53 PM
The author of trickle-down economics, David Stockman, has since discredited the theory as inherently flawed. The flaw in the theory is the assumption that the upper economic classes, having received additional cash flow in the form of tax cuts, will put that additional cash flow into the nation's economy by spending it.

What actually happens for the most part, according to Stockman, is that the recipients of the tax cuts will save the money, in one way or another, thereby taking that money out of circulation. Hence, no trickling down occurs.

Critics, before and after the fact, deride the theory as a ruse for giving fat cats big tax cuts while selling the middle class on the idea. In both its current version and as it was implemented during the Reagon adminstration, huge federal deficits are an unfortunate byproduct.

There's only one way of saving money that takes it out of circulation, and that's keeping physical cash on hand. Any other way of saving money makes that money available to be directly invested in business or borrowed by businesses or other consumers who will use it to buy stuff. That is decidedly not taking it out of the economy, and any economist would realize that. Buying stuff is not the only way an economy is helped.

And, no deficit is recorded without government spending.

IJustLikeTivo
01-27-2006, 07:54 PM
Maui for President! :up: :up: :up:

In its heydey, The West Wing was the best written show on TV, bar none. It's still excellent, although Sorkin's gift for dialogue is sorely missed.


I'd say second best. It is the best drama but the best dialog ever was when Sorkin was writing Sports Night. I've seen every episode and they still grab me. The dialog was so crisp and the acting was so very very good. It makes me chringe when I see the actors there doing lesser work now even if their new shows have more success.

bengalfreak
01-27-2006, 08:24 PM
Supposedly, but not actually. Is that somehow not what the term means, to you?


Exactly, the Republicans are supposedly fiscally conservative, however, this Presidency and congress have not been actually conservative in any sense. Case in point, there was a balanced budget when the last president left office. Has there been a single year of George W. Bush's campaign that has put up a budget in the black? That's the type of thing that prompted Ronald Reagan to create the misery index. Sorry for hi-jacking the thread.

aindik
01-27-2006, 09:01 PM
Exactly, the Republicans are supposedly fiscally conservative, however, this Presidency and congress have not been actually conservative in any sense. Case in point, there was a balanced budget when the last president left office. Has there been a single year of George W. Bush's campaign that has put up a budget in the black? That's the type of thing that prompted Ronald Reagan to create the misery index. Sorry for hi-jacking the thread.

Jimmy Carter created the misery index. As for the rest of the post before that? :up:

frombhto323
01-28-2006, 10:29 AM
There's only one way of saving money that takes it out of circulation, and that's keeping physical cash on hand. Any other way of saving money makes that money available to be directly invested in business or borrowed by businesses or other consumers who will use it to buy stuff. That is decidedly not taking it out of the economy, and any economist would realize that. Buying stuff is not the only way an economy is helped.

And, no deficit is recorded without government spending.


Point taken on money being still available for investing and borrowing. Stockman's point however, I believe, is that to the extent that at least some of that money is available for those uses, it would have been available anyway in that sense. Re-distributing the money to the upper classes did not increase its availability, which was supposed to be the goal.

Government spends all the time. As another poster noted earlier in this thread, the debate is distorted. While it should be about how much and what we spend our public funds on, it has become about whether to raise and spend the money in the first place.

The "starve the beast" theory is alive and well. Unfortunately, it doesn't serve us well during times like the Katrina crisis, for instance.

aindik
01-28-2006, 10:44 AM
Point taken on money being still available for investing and borrowing. Stockman's point however, I believe, is that to the extent that at least some of that money is available for those uses, it would have been available anyway in that sense. Re-distributing the money to the upper classes did not increase its availability, which was supposed to be the goal.

Government spends all the time. As another poster noted earlier in this thread, the debate is distorted. While it should be about how much and what we spend our public funds on, it has become about whether to raise and spend the money in the first place.

The "starve the beast" theory is alive and well. Unfortunately, it doesn't serve us well during times like the Katrina crisis, for instance.

Cutting taxes leaves more money in private hands. The money wouldn't have been "available anyway," because the government would have taken it and used it for its purposes instead. Cutting taxes is not "redistributing the money," it's simply taking less money from people who have money.

The debate should be on whether we spend public money in the first place. For every cent the government spends, there should be a debate about whether it is morally right to forcibly take the money from someone to obtain that cent to be spent on that thing. Unfortunately, the debate in Washington assumes the money belongs in the Treasury, and the debate is simply what to spend it on once it gets there. That's a tragedy.

If there needs to be emergency spending on things like Katrina, I agree that decifits make that harder, but I'd say that high levels of taxation would make it just as hard.

frombhto323
01-29-2006, 05:12 PM
Cutting taxes leaves more money in private hands. The money wouldn't have been "available anyway," because the government would have taken it and used it for its purposes instead. Cutting taxes is not "redistributing the money," it's simply taking less money from people who have money.

The debate should be on whether we spend public money in the first place. For every cent the government spends, there should be a debate about whether it is morally right to forcibly take the money from someone to obtain that cent to be spent on that thing. Unfortunately, the debate in Washington assumes the money belongs in the Treasury, and the debate is simply what to spend it on once it gets there. That's a tragedy.

If there needs to be emergency spending on things like Katrina, I agree that decifits make that harder, but I'd say that high levels of taxation would make it just as hard.

1) The Government, in all American forms, is not "IT." WE are the Government. Remember "of the People..." That fact that none of US likes all the people WE choose to represent US should not diminish that concept;

2) I agree that leaving more money in private hands is something WE should see as virtuous, and I further agree that too few of US see it that way. However, leaving money in private hands at the expense of not meeting OUR public needs does not strike me as sound public fiscal policy;

3) Having more money in OUR public treasury to quickly respond to public crises seems to be a responsible plan to me. That same money in private hands can only be used to respond after the fact, as the Katrina response demonstrates;

4) The assumption is that WE need financial resources to meet needs that WE agree only WE, through OUR Government, should handle, such as building and maintaining OUR infrastructure, adequately resourcing OUR schools, providing public safety, and ensuring public health, for instance; and

5) Those who want a diminished public treasury are not villians in my mind, they just put more faith in private use of funds to address certain needs, unjustifiably in my mind. After all, it seems every spate of deregulation is followed by forseeable consequences, such as the savings and loan debacle, shoddy maintenance of passenger airplanes with tragic results, and the recent mining disasters, to name a few. Since none of US want those things to happen, and WE can't trust private industry to make sure they don't, WE have to regulate them to some extent. Which requires manpower and resources, which of course costs money.

All of which brings US back to the question: Should the debate be about whether to raise and spend OUR money in the first place, or about how much and what we spend OUR money on. OUR Government's role is to make public policies to meet OUR public needs, WE can all agree on that. The debate, therefore, is what OUR public needs are, and how much of OUR money to spend on those needs.

aindik
01-29-2006, 05:52 PM
You can capitalize "we" and "our" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that, almost every time we have an election, more than forty percent of the population doesn't like the result. The fact that this person, who I don't like, won an election, is little consolation to me when that person takes my money and spends it on things that I do not approve. That's why the government, democratically elected by majorities as it is, does not (or, at least, should not) have carte blanche to do everything in under the sun, simply because over 50% of the people agree. Certain things are left to individuals to do or not do, whether majorities agree with it or not. That's the "freedom" part of "freedom and democracy."

marrone
01-30-2006, 03:34 PM
Back to "The West Wing", I read that the ratings plummeted since moving to Sunday.

Well, why not just move it back to where it was?

-Mike

aindik
01-30-2006, 03:42 PM
Back to "The West Wing", I read that the ratings plummeted since moving to Sunday.

Well, why not just move it back to where it was?

-Mike

Because ABC is airing "Lost" in that timeslot now, which is direct competition for the West Wing. I'm thinking the Biggest Loser, which they have on there now, is getting better ratings than TWW would get in a head to head against Lost, because TWW and Lost probably share some audience, where Biggest Loser and Lost probably share less. Though, NBC will start running Law & Order in that timeslot after the Olympics, head to head against Lost, which goes against my theory. But that might have something to do with not trying to run The Biggest Loser against the American Idol results show.

Maybe NBC should move it to Tuesdays at 9, now that Commander in Chief is on hiatus. The marketing campaign could be: looking for the President on Tuesday nights? He's right here on NBC. :)

edc
01-30-2006, 03:46 PM
Back to "The West Wing", I read that the ratings plummeted since moving to Sunday.

Well, why not just move it back to where it was?


Because NBC doesn't want the ratings to improve. They moved the show to Sunday so the ratings would go down, so they would have an excuse to cancel the series.

newsposter
01-30-2006, 03:49 PM
i'm surprised they didn't move it to fridays to kill it sooner..oh wait ..that's what they are doing to las vegas in march :(

busyba
01-30-2006, 03:52 PM
Because NBC doesn't want the ratings to improve. They moved the show to Sunday so the ratings would go down, so they would have an excuse to cancel the series.
It's not like they need an excuse.

They can cancel a show on a whim if they want (and I'm sure it's happened in the past).

Besides, if a network needs an excuse to cancel a show, all they have to do is introduce a Jesus character and the torch-and-pitchfork wielding mobs will get it canceled right quick. :D

edc
01-30-2006, 04:09 PM
It's not like they need an excuse.

They can cancel a show on a whim if they want (and I'm sure it's happened in the past).



Networks do not "need" excuses, but for a long-running series, particularly one with contracts to deal with, it may just be simpler to dump it into a "death slot," and then blame cancellation on the diminished ratings.

bicker
01-31-2006, 07:50 AM
That's a key point. There is no obligation on the part of a network to take a hit on profit in the interest of continuing a long-running series. If a series is expensive to produce, it must command superlative advertising revenues in whatever time-slot it is put into. If it doesn't, then it is not worthy of continuing.

ewolfr
01-31-2006, 12:49 PM
That's a key point. There is no obligation on the part of a network to take a hit on profit in the interest of continuing a long-running series. If a series is expensive to produce, it must command superlative advertising revenues in whatever time-slot it is put into. If it doesn't, then it is not worthy of continuing.

The money losing aspect is what killed on of my wife's favorite shows, 7th Heaven. I believe someone at the WB said that they lost about $20m this year alone from the show and that was the only reason behind cancelling it.

edc
01-31-2006, 01:20 PM
That's a key point. There is no obligation on the part of a network to take a hit on profit in the interest of continuing a long-running series. If a series is expensive to produce, it must command superlative advertising revenues in whatever time-slot it is put into. If it doesn't, then it is not worthy of continuing.

The *ONLY* obligations are contractual. NBC must pay Warner Brothers and LeBlanc whether or not it airs the remaining episodes of "Joey." Similar contracts existed for "West Wing" (through this season), and exist for Sorkin's new show next season.

NBC was under no obligation to renew WW beyond this season, but would've been in a much more difficult position concerning cancellation had they (say) moved the show to Tuesday nights at 9/8, and the ratings kept consistent or gone up slightly (from those on Wed.)

bicker
01-31-2006, 03:39 PM
I bet that if WW was Tuesday at 9PM it would still have done significantly worse than last year.

feldon23
01-31-2006, 03:42 PM
The episode with CJ and Danny having dinner and Danny trying to propose to her was the worst episode of West Wing I've ever seen. CJ and Bartlet used to have great chemistry. Leo and Bartlet used to be honest about everything. Now you have CJ trying to hide from the President for what end?

The show has really faltered since Sorkin was kicked out. There have been some good episodes here and there, but I have been able to go back and watch seasons 1-2 with my partner and we both notice just how much better the Sorkin episodes are compared to the new stuff.

I really do like the speeches they've been giving to Jimmy Smits. That's the highlight of the new episodes compared to the weak-ass stuff they've been giving CJ, Tobey, and Will to do. I think WW is being put out of its misery. I can't imagine the show without Leo and Tobey anyway.

bengalfreak
01-31-2006, 05:13 PM
West Wing has been in a serious tail spin since Rob Lowe left. The back and forth between he and Tobey is sorely missed.