|
Post by otherscott on Apr 4, 2019 9:05:55 GMT -8
Coming soon.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 4, 2019 15:44:56 GMT -8
Cool!
My reviews are also resuming soon, hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Apr 22, 2019 11:06:12 GMT -8
“Isaac and Ishmael”
This episode wasn’t for me and I don’t think ever had a chance. As soon as they decided that it was going to be removed from the main storyline it meant that it was going to have no effect on character or development of the show.
That being said, there’s opportunities to tell good short stories that are disconnected from the rest, if you have an appropriate amount of complexity and make it about something. This wasn’t that either, it was characters lecturing us on terrorists for 40 minutes without actually saying anything valuable or noteworthy.
This didn’t need to exist and probably shouldn’t have.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 22, 2019 14:25:46 GMT -8
Really, the only possible way to appreciate "Isaac and Ishmael" is to frame it in the context of the time it was made. Looking at it through 2019 eyes, it's objectively shallow and ham-fisted. Viewed as an episode that was specifically made for an October 2001 audience, it becomes more understandable (if not necessarily "good").
I disagree with your last statement - this episode did need to exist, if only because having the most political show on TV not reference 9/11 in some format would have felt jarring to the audience. Whether this episode could have been handled better (it probably could've) is another question.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Apr 23, 2019 7:39:38 GMT -8
A couple years ago I thought it would be funny to make a mashup of the classroom scenes from "Isaac and Ishmael" and the Key & Peele substitute teacher sketches. I think it'd be better than the actual episode. It might actually be watchable.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Apr 24, 2019 13:12:05 GMT -8
Really, the only possible way to appreciate "Isaac and Ishmael" is to frame it in the context of the time it was made. Looking at it through 2019 eyes, it's objectively shallow and ham-fisted. Viewed as an episode that was specifically made for an October 2001 audience, it becomes more understandable (if not necessarily "good"). I disagree with your last statement - this episode did need to exist, if only because having the most political show on TV not reference 9/11 in some format would have felt jarring to the audience. Whether this episode could have been handled better (it probably could've) is another question. I just disagree, I think you have to mention it in terms of end credits, maybe even in that weird talking head opening they did. But you don't have to build an episode around it. Your show is set in an alternate universe anyways, and I just don't see how you tackle something like 9/11 in a show like West Wing without it coming across as a lecture. And this pretty much was just a lecture. It was not too far off what The Newsroom would have done for 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 24, 2019 15:13:42 GMT -8
It was not too far off what The Newsroom would have done for 9/11. Oh, The Newsroom did worse. Their 9/11-based episode (centered on the killing of Bin Laden) was not only bad, manipulative, and condescending to viewers, it even put Obama's "We got him" speech over the closing credits. At least "Isaac and Ishmael" being non-canonical means I can forget (and forgive) it more easily.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Apr 25, 2019 19:11:52 GMT -8
“Manchester Part 1”
This episode is a prime example of trying to do too many things at once, and really kind of relays potential pratfalls on ending seasons on cliffhangers.
This episode is almost trying to be a little like “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen” and taking turns focusing on the different staffers without exactly imitating it. And as a result it kind of gets mixed between a bunch of different things, trying to focus on two timelines while also checking in on everyone while also resolving the major events of “Two Cathdrals.” The episode really just needed to pick a lane and stay there and it kind of couldn’t. We’ll see if part 2 is able to be a little more focussed or whether the scattershot framing continues.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on May 2, 2019 3:55:55 GMT -8
“Manchester Pt 2”
Very much the same as part 1, the framing format kind of screwed around with the flow of the episode to no real benefit. The message and work done on this episode aren’t bad exactly but telling things in a more straightforward manner would have helped my feelings on it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 2, 2019 16:28:26 GMT -8
I get that. "Manchester" is not the worst season premiere in the series, but it's probably the least memorable. The other six premieres each have something that makes them stand out, for good or bad; "Manchester" is just a table-setter for the third season. (Although coming after "Two Cathedrals," pretty much anything would be anticlimactic.)
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on May 8, 2019 19:22:45 GMT -8
“Ways and Means”
The nature of the premiere being almost entirely centred around the events of “Two Cathedrals” means that this episode has to do a lot of heavy lifting to set up the season on a plot basis. Really this type of episode isn’t The West Wing’s strong suit, with so little character work, which is going to make this episode very forgettable long term.
I have to admit a little confusion on Mrs. Landingham’s pens. I understand how they got in the presidents shirt each day, but what did he do with them at the end of the day? Where did they go? Did they get back to Mrs. Landingham somehow?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 9, 2019 4:53:29 GMT -8
Bartlet left the pens out on his desk at the end of every day. and Mrs. Landingham collected them. Because you can't expect someone as busy as Bartlet to take the time to keep his pens in order (even if you somehow can expect him to use 15 of them to sign his name).
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on May 11, 2019 3:14:33 GMT -8
“On The Day Before”
The West Wing is in a place right now where it’s becoming too much about the politics. Unfortunately, politics isn’t really its strong suit, it often has a little too much embedded idealism to be all that based in reality. The show does really well with character work, and it does feel like that’s been taking a back seat so far this season. I’m confident it can get it back, but this probably has been the least encouraging start to a season so far.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on May 16, 2019 20:03:55 GMT -8
“War Crimes”
This was a bit of a Sorkin soapbox episode. There’s a little bit of emotional stuff here with Donna, though the whole storyline is built around quite a bit of stupidity in general and I’m not sure I like how it was handled. The Leo stuff was too standard to be interesting. I guess you can make a case that the Hoynes parts were the best part of the episode, but Hoynes mostly bores me.
I don’t know, I’m still waiting for this season to do something that proves to me why I like this show. The start feels weak, but hopefully it’s building to something.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 17, 2019 15:32:58 GMT -8
Hackneyed as the phrase may sound: "It gets better, trust me." I like the early Season 3 episodes (well, except a couple you'll be getting to shortly), but it does suffer from an anticlimactic feel in the wake of that final S2 run. The show tries to preserve its earlier status quo, while also acknowledging how different things are; not a great balance, even if thee are still several individual good storylines.
|
|