Discussion:
West Wing: CJ vs. Josh as CoS
(too old to reply)
theget
2010-08-14 07:32:13 UTC
Permalink
I was wondering why it was CJ who was chosen to be CoS and not Josh.

I recall the series ending with a scene of Santos in the Oval with
Josh as CoS.

Was the campaign a maturing process for Josh? Was he not ready? Did
the campaign actually make him ready for that kind of responsibility?

There seems to be quite a bit of growth and change for many of the
characters as the Bartlet admin finishes their second term.

It's fun to watch Toby trying to be WH press secretary. I wonder if
part of this is that the writers want to make the point that we've had
a good time watching people do jobs that they're good at most of the
time and they make it look easy, most of the time. But they're hard
jobs to do.

But still. Why CJ and not Josh? And if not Josh, how could he really
be ready after the campaign?

BTW, I've taken my cue from, I think it was Duggy, and put a West Wing
in the Subject, but is it strange to do that in this group?

Theget
Duggy
2010-08-14 12:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by theget
I was wondering why it was CJ who was chosen to be CoS and not Josh.
It seems a strange choice, but really there was no other.
Post by theget
I recall the series ending with a scene of Santos in the Oval with
Josh as CoS.
Yes.
Post by theget
Was the campaign a maturing process for Josh? Was he not
ready? Did the campaign actually make him ready for that kind of
responsibility?
Partially. But it was where Santos and Josh bonded.
Post by theget
There seems to be quite a bit of growth and change for many of the
characters as the Bartlet admin finishes their second term.
I remember seeing a doco about Reagan and all of the White House staff
were "1980 - 1987" and the like. I assume there is some natural
attrition. Some move on to work with the VP or other candidates and
some get another job while they've got a better looking resume.

So it's realistic.
Post by theget
It's fun to watch Toby trying to be WH press secretary.  I wonder if
part of this is that the writers want to make the point that we've had
a good time watching people do jobs that they're good at most of the
time and they make it look easy, most of the time.  But they're hard
jobs to do.
Agreed.
Post by theget
But still. Why CJ and not Josh? And if not Josh, how could he
really be ready after the campaign?
Leo was Jed's friend who was smarter than him. Leo worked with Jed to
run the White House.

Josh was the White House's pitbull. He did the politics.
Post by theget
BTW, I've taken my cue from, I think it was Duggy, and put a West Wing
in the Subject, but is it strange to do that in this group?
I do it to get past the noise.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2010-08-14 12:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by theget
But still. Why CJ and not Josh? And if not Josh, how could he
really be ready after the campaign?
Leo was Jed's friend who was smarter than him.  Leo worked with Jed to
run the White House.

Josh was the White House's pitbull.  He did the politics.

Pull Josh out of that role and you've got no one to fill it (as we saw
when Josh left).

Josh doesn't have the bond with Jed that Leo had. There'd be a battle
of wills. And he'd still try to do his old job (as CJ did).

There may be some problem with Toby.

Josh was not right for the role under Bartlett.

CJ wasn't probably the best choice, but she was the only one at the
time.

With Santos, Josh had that bond, they were friends (recently acquired,
but forged in fire).

Also despite what the show claimed, CJ was replacable as White
House... not 100% and the new person wouldn't be as good, but not as
prohibitively as replacing Josh.

===
= DUG.
===
mag3
2010-08-18 15:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by theget
I was wondering why it was CJ who was chosen to be CoS and not Josh.
I think it was more to experiment with the concept of a woman having that
role in the WH where, previously, none ever had. I'll bet it helped a little
with the show's female consistency. And CJ certainly had the strength and
experience to do the job... perhaps more so than Josh. Leo certainly seemed
to think so. After all, he gave Pres. Bartlet the "one name" right from his CCU
bedside.

I agree with the concept of the COS being the President's BFF or "right hand,"
to an extent. They both (Leo and Josh) "got their guy to run... and win..." As
Pres. Bartlet told Josh once... "I wanna be the guy.... You wanna be the guy
the guy count's on." At the time CJ was picked, I really don't think Josh had
that "right hand/BFF" degree of relationship with Bartlet, even though Bartlet did
once refer to Josh as "his son." Perhaps his "younger son" that still needed a
little discipline. I think CJ came closer to it, being another de facto "older daughter"
for Bartlet.

OTOH, Josh did that very thing for Santos that Leo did for Bartlet, and thus, became
his "BFF/right hand" guy, in a way that Santos' own cronies couldn't be. And, he
did have the Capitol Hill experience. But even Santos acknowledged CJ's worth,
attempting to have her stay on as "Senior consultant" (Institutional Memory).
Post by theget
It's fun to watch Toby trying to be WH press secretary. I wonder if
part of this is that the writers want to make the point that we've had
a good time watching people do jobs that they're good at most of the
time and they make it look easy, most of the time. But they're hard
jobs to do.
Nah, I think Toby was legitimately uncomfortable with that role. And
Richard Schiff played it beautifully. Richard *got* that role (Toby) spot on!

I also think it may have been easier to give Toby the Press Secy's job so to
give Richard more daily exposure in the series, seeing that eventually, they
would lessen his role in season 7 to make way for those actors they had to
bring in for the Santos/Vinick campaigns. Most of the WH staff got campaign
jobs (Donna, Will (for a little while anyway), Josh). CJ was the "Station Master"
making the trains run on time. I dunno what happened to Charlie... He got buried
down in to the bowels of the WH. What could they have done with Toby? It made
sense for the producers to let the other actors pursue other gigs outside WW and
just come back when needed. Or, perhaps, they had contracts that paid them no
matter how many eps they were in (unlikely, I'd think). So I think this story arc for
Toby allowed him a little freedom to pursue other gigs, but kept his presence alive.

What got me was how they were able to film the opening scene of the
7th season with *exactly* the characters they needed for it (ie. No Leo,
no Donna, etc.) when they weren't even sure that Santos would win. According
to John Wells, Vinick was going to win, up until the point of John Spencer's
death in December of that year. You'd figure if Leo were still alive, he'd be
in that little gathering of the Bartlet Museum dedication. Perhaps John's health
was beginning to fail, and they anticipated that when doing that scene.

Speaking of Charlie.... I'm a little bummed that they did not completely
resolve Zoey & Charlie's relationship. They took care of Josh/Donna and
CJ & Danny.... why not Zoey & Charlie? Perhaps a little "grist" for the
"West Wing" movie! :-))) That would be interesting, actually. I envision Bartlet
being very close to (if not on) Death's door, and all in his realm trying their
best to deal with that, especially the family members. I can also see Bartlet
secretly wanting Zoey & Charlie to marry as he is assured that Zoey will be
well taken care of. But I think, for as much as Charlie has matured, he's still
quite intimidated by Pres. Bartlet, and still a little "uppity" in general and needs
a little "chilling out." Likewise, for as much as Zoey has matured, she's still a
bit of a "wild child" at heart, and needs a little stability. Zoey and Charlie seem
to compliment each other accordingly, and a strong story arc of *my* WW movie
is how they do that and end up together, right as Bartlet departs this Earth.... At
least, secure in his youngest daughter's security.
Post by theget
BTW, I've taken my cue from, I think it was Duggy, and put a West Wing
in the Subject, but is it strange to do that in this group?
Not necessary, I'd think. Except for the SPAM, we all know it's a West Wing
NG. Why bother?

____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold
mag3
2010-08-18 15:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mag3
Post by theget
I was wondering why it was CJ who was chosen to be CoS and not Josh.
I think it was more to experiment with the concept of a woman having that
role in the WH where, previously, none ever had. I'll bet it helped a little
with the show's female consistency.
"Constituency...." $)@&$&#@!$ Spell checker!!! >:-|
____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold
Duggy
2010-08-19 10:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mag3
I also think it may have been easier to give Toby the Press Secy's job so to
give Richard more daily exposure in the series, seeing that eventually, they
would lessen his role in season 7 to make way for those actors they had to
bring in for the Santos/Vinick campaigns. Most of the WH staff got campaign
jobs (Donna, Will (for a little while anyway), Josh). CJ was the "Station Master"
making the trains run on time. I dunno what happened to Charlie... He got buried
down in to the bowels of the WH.  What could they have done with Toby? It made
sense for the producers to let the other actors pursue other gigs outside WW and
just come back when needed. Or, perhaps, they had contracts that paid them no
matter how many eps they were in (unlikely, I'd think). So I think this story arc for
Toby allowed him a little freedom to pursue other gigs, but kept his presence alive.
Generally, if you appear in the openning credits you are contracted
and paid for a single fee and guaranteed to appear certain number of
episodes but required to be available when needed. Stockard Channing
would be the only exception.

The producers were asked to reduce the cast in season 7, and picked
Toby and Charlie to reduce the role of.
Post by mag3
What got me was how they were able to film the opening scene of the
7th season with *exactly* the characters they needed for it (ie. No Leo,
no Donna, etc.) when they weren't even sure that Santos would win. According
to John Wells, Vinick was going to win, up until the point of John Spencer's
death in December of that year.
Other writers disagree, claiming that Santos was always meant to win.
It's hard to say who is telling the truth.

The opener had to be filmed so it didn't give away the verdict (if
they had one) so Santos, Vinick and Leo could not appear.

They were lucky that Leo wasn't in it.
Post by mag3
You'd figure if Leo were still alive, he'd be
in that little gathering of the Bartlet Museum dedication.
If he was VP he'd need secret service and staff... that would give
away the answer.
Post by mag3
Speaking of Charlie.... I'm a little bummed that they did not completely
resolve Zoey & Charlie's relationship. They took care of Josh/Donna and
CJ & Danny....  why not Zoey & Charlie?
Well, Charlie did state he wanted them to be an official couple.
Post by mag3
I envision Bartlet
being very close to (if not on) Death's door, and all in his realm trying their
best to deal with that, especially the family members. I can also see Bartlet
secretly wanting Zoey & Charlie to marry as he is assured that Zoey will be
well taken care of. But I think, for as much as Charlie has matured, he's still
quite intimidated by Pres. Bartlet, and still a little "uppity" in general and needs
a little "chilling out." Likewise, for as much as Zoey has matured, she's still a
bit of a "wild child" at heart, and needs a little stability. Zoey and Charlie seem
to compliment each other accordingly, and a strong story arc of *my* WW movie
is how they do that and end up together, right as Bartlet departs this Earth.... At
least,  secure in his youngest daughter's security.
I think it'd need to be about Barlet facing war-crimes trials for the
assasination. Josh trying to work out a way that Santos can stop it.
Post by mag3
Post by theget
BTW, I've taken my cue from, I think it was Duggy, and put a West Wing
in the Subject, but is it strange to do that in this group?
Not necessary, I'd think. Except for the SPAM, we all know it's a West Wing
NG.  Why bother?
To avoid the spam.

===
= DUG.
===
mag3
2010-08-19 15:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Generally, if you appear in the openning credits you are contracted
and paid for a single fee and guaranteed to appear certain number of
episodes but required to be available when needed. Stockard Channing
would be the only exception.
The producers were asked to reduce the cast in season 7, and picked
Toby and Charlie to reduce the role of.
And, to a much lesser extent, Donna... At least for a tiny bit during the 1st
part of the season.
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
What got me was how they were able to film the opening scene of the
7th season with *exactly* the characters they needed for it (ie. No Leo,
no Donna, etc.) when they weren't even sure that Santos would win. According
to John Wells, Vinnick was going to win, up until the point of John Spencer's
death in December of that year.
Other writers disagree, claiming that Santos was always meant to win.
It's hard to say who is telling the truth.
Well, since it is John Wells' show, I'd have to lean toward him.... What reason
would he have for not telling the truth, in this case? The thinking, as I recall,
was to implement a transition similar to Clinton-->GWB, and given the consulting
writers they had (Peggy Noonan, Marlin Fitzwater etc - along with Dee Dee Myers
and Lawrence O'Donnel), I could see that happeneing...
Post by Duggy
The opener had to be filmed so it didn't give away the verdict (if
they had one) so Santos, Vinick and Leo could not appear.
They were lucky that Leo wasn't in it.
Post by mag3
You'd figure if Leo were still alive, he'd be
in that little gathering of the Bartlet Museum dedication.
If he was VP he'd need secret service and staff... that would give
away the answer.
But, by that logic, so would Josh need Secret Service. Recall how CJ had
Secret Service protection all the time, especially when visiting Toby and
Danny in the Institutional Memory ep, just before the finale. In the 7th season
opening, Josh just comes in by himself, announcing "The President's here."
A little risky (in re: "giving it away") on the writer's part as well.
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Speaking of Charlie.... I'm a little bummed that they did not completely
resolve Zoey & Charlie's relationship. They took care of Josh/Donna and
CJ & Danny....  why not Zoey & Charlie?
Well, Charlie did state he wanted them to be an official couple.
Insufficient ending. As my math teacher liked to say, "If 'desire' were achievement,
<insert student name> would be an 'A' math student." We know what happened to
the others. We don't know what happened to Zoey and Charlie. And it would seem
that it may have cooled off between them, as they did not sit together at Leo's Funeral,
nor were they together while watching the "election night" results etc. She was with
the family. But, perhaps, that's how the writers wanted to stage it (ie. the "family"
altogether). After all, Ellie and Liz were married and neither husband were by their
wive's side at the funeral. The three daughters were together. A much better visual,
I'm thinking. Of course, it could be due to the actors not being available. Come to think
of it, Ellie should have been "nicely showing" by that point. I doubt she would have
delivered by then....
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
I envision Bartlet
being very close to (if not on) Death's door, and all in his realm trying their
best to deal with that, especially the family members. I can also see Bartlet
secretly wanting Zoey & Charlie to marry as he is assured that Zoey will be
well taken care of. But I think, for as much as Charlie has matured, he's still
quite intimidated by Pres. Bartlet, and still a little "uppity" in general and needs
a little "chilling out." Likewise, for as much as Zoey has matured, she's still a
bit of a "wild child" at heart, and needs a little stability. Zoey and Charlie seem
to compliment each other accordingly, and a strong story arc of *my* WW movie
is how they do that and end up together, right as Bartlet departs this Earth.... At
least,  secure in his youngest daughter's security.
I think it'd need to be about Barlet facing war-crimes trials for the
assasination. Josh trying to work out a way that Santos can stop it.
Assuming Santos is still in office. We could be talking years later, maybe a decade or so.
Perhaps it's the aftermath of that trial (however it turns out) that hastens Bartlet's departure.
But I think any West Wing movie would have to be about Bartlet and what happens to him and his,
post WH. To involve the Santos administration would, I think, distract from the central theme...
Bartlet was that show (must to Rob Lowe's frustration, admittedly).

____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold
Duggy
2010-08-20 08:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Generally, if you appear in the openning credits you are contracted
and paid for a single fee and guaranteed to appear certain number of
episodes but required to be available when needed.  Stockard Channing
would be the only exception.
The producers were asked to reduce the cast in season 7, and picked
Toby and Charlie to reduce the role of.
And, to a much lesser extent, Donna...
That was more a story thing.
Post by mag3
At least for a tiny bit during the 1st
part of the season.
And Will and various times.
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
What got me was how they were able to film the opening scene of the
7th season with *exactly* the characters they needed for it (ie. No Leo,
no Donna, etc.) when they weren't even sure that Santos would win. According
to John Wells, Vinnick was going to win, up until the point of John Spencer's
death in December of that year.
Other writers disagree, claiming that Santos was always meant to win.
It's hard to say who is telling the truth.
Well, since it is John Wells' show, I'd have to lean toward him....
Actually, O'Donnel said Vinick was meant to win. Wells said otherwise
and O'Donnel recanted.
Post by mag3
 What reason would he have for not telling the truth, in this case? The thinking, as I recall,
was to implement a transition similar to Clinton-->GWB, and given the consulting
writers they had (Peggy Noonan, Marlin Fitzwater etc - along with Dee Dee Myers
and Lawrence O'Donnel), I could see that happeneing...
Yeah, but Santos only won because of the meltdown in John's final
episode.
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
If he was VP he'd need secret service and staff... that would give
away the answer.
But, by that logic,  so would Josh need Secret Service. Recall how CJ had
Secret Service protection all the time, especially when visiting Toby and
Danny in the Institutional Memory ep, just before the finale. In the 7th season
opening, Josh just comes in by himself, announcing "The President's here."  
The Bartlett Library would have been under the President's umbrella
since he was about to arrive. The CoS would need minimal protection
at that time. The VP would still have assigned agents.
Post by mag3
A little risky (in re: "giving it away") on the writer's part as well.
Leo would have to be VP or not. Josh doesn't have to be CoS. Nothing
was given away.
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Well, Charlie did state he wanted them to be an official couple.
Insufficient ending.
Par for the course for their relationship. Most of it occured off
camera.
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
I think it'd need to be about Barlet facing war-crimes trials for the
assasination.  Josh trying to work out a way that Santos can stop it.
Assuming Santos is still in office. We could be talking years later, maybe a decade or so.
Time is fluid in The West Wing universe.
Post by mag3
Perhaps it's the aftermath of that trial (however it turns out) that hastens Bartlet's departure.
But I think any West Wing movie would have to be about Bartlet and what happens to him and his,
post WH. To involve the Santos administration would, I think, distract from the central theme...
Bartlet was that show (must to Rob Lowe's frustration, admittedly).
I thought The West Wing was the central theme... well, and the
campaign.

===
= DUG.
===
mag3
2010-08-20 10:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Generally, if you appear in the openning credits you are contracted
and paid for a single fee and guaranteed to appear certain number of
episodes but required to be available when needed.  Stockard Channing
would be the only exception.
The producers were asked to reduce the cast in season 7, and picked
Toby and Charlie to reduce the role of.
And, to a much lesser extent, Donna...
That was more a story thing.
Still, it worked the same way as the others. During the 7th season eps in
which she didn't appear, neither did her screen credit.
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Well, Charlie did state he wanted them to be an official couple.
Insufficient ending.
Par for the course for their relationship. Most of it occured off
camera.
Still doesn't make it acceptable. I wanted them to have the same chance
at resolution as the others. And just why *did* their relationship have to
be "off camera?"
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
I think it'd need to be about Barlet facing war-crimes trials for the
assasination.  Josh trying to work out a way that Santos can stop it.
Assuming Santos is still in office. We could be talking years later, maybe a decade or so.
Time is fluid in The West Wing universe.
Not that much time. Then we're talking "suspension of disbelief," and that's always
hard to swallow.
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Perhaps it's the aftermath of that trial (however it turns out) that hastens Bartlet's departure.
But I think any West Wing movie would have to be about Bartlet and what happens to him and his,
post WH. To involve the Santos administration would, I think, distract from the central theme...
Bartlet was that show (must to Rob Lowe's frustration, admittedly).
I thought The West Wing was the central theme... well, and the
campaign.
It was supposed to be.... And Sam Seaborn was supposed to be the heart of
it... The "President" was only supposed to be a "recurring" role, to be seen perhaps
every 4 episodes or so. But Martin Sheen came in and took care of that in very
short order. This, contributing to Lowe's departure, I believe. During the late 6th &
entire 7th seasons, then yes, it was more about the campaign since, in essence, the
WH was already in "lame duck mode."

____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold
Duggy
2010-08-21 02:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
That was more a story thing.
Still, it worked the same way as the others. During the 7th season eps in
which she didn't appear, neither did her screen credit.
Then she must have had a different contract. Possibly because her
contract didn't contain a openning credit until season 2.
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Well, Charlie did state he wanted them to be an official couple.
Insufficient ending.
Par for the course for their relationship.  Most of it occured off
camera.
Still doesn't make it acceptable. I wanted them to have the same chance
at resolution as the others. And just why *did* their relationship have to
be "off camera?"  
Because The West Wing wasn't about relationships, especially when
Aaron wrote it. They were there but never at the front.

Charlie & Zoey mostly happened off-screen (we didn't know they'd
broken up until a season later or something.
It was impossible to tell where Josh & Amy's relationship was going to
be at any appearence.
Sam & Mallory just stopped and we didn't see why until a season or so
later.
CJ & Danny were the same through most of the series.

In season 7, that changed... possibly looking for resolution of them
(as you say). But by that time Charlie was no longer a regular cast
member and Zoey never was.
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
I think it'd need to be about Barlet facing war-crimes trials for the
assasination.  Josh trying to work out a way that Santos can stop it.
Assuming Santos is still in office. We could be talking years later, maybe a decade or so.
Time is fluid in The West Wing universe.
Not that much time. Then we're talking "suspension of disbelief," and that's always
hard to swallow.
2006 + 2x 4 year terms, 2014. Add say, 2 years for fluidity... still
have 6 years to do it.
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
I thought The West Wing was the central theme... well, and the
campaign.
It was supposed to be.... And Sam Seaborn was supposed to be the heart of
it...
I know.
Post by mag3
 The "President" was only supposed to be a "recurring" role, to be seen perhaps
every 4 episodes or so. But Martin Sheen came in and took care of that in very
short order.
Sure, and it became an ensemble. In think Josh became much more the
centre if you could find one... not surprising since Bradley was a
person friend of Aaron's who was at the dinner party where Akiva
Goldman (curse the name) suggested the series.
Post by mag3
This, contributing to Lowe's departure, I believe.
So it is said. Others say he was to do with Aaron's conflicts with
execs. These stories change all the time.
Post by mag3
  During the late 6th & entire 7th seasons, then yes, it was more about the campaign since, in essence, the
WH was already in "lame duck mode."
I think that in 7 the WH should have been in Lame Duck mode...
however, I think writing and other issues forced the issue for the
series.

Two major left for the campaign episodes which had to happen and was
part of the lame duckness and a third had been pushed there earlier.
But there were 3 other plots that pushed it harder:

The replacement of Leo as CoS. If Leo had stayed as CoS until the end
of season 6 the WH episodes would have been stronger. The
replacement of a strong press secretary. The loss of all speech
writing story. Coupled with the lost of Josh means there was no
regulars to tell policy stories with giving us a sense of lame
duckness before it actually occured.

Barlett's sickness. Bartlett became an - almost literally - lame duck
due to his illness.

And the complete loss to the White House at the end of season 6 of
Toby finished the job.

Season 6 West Wing stories could have been stronger but other those
ongoing plots undermined it. The campaign stories were the enjoyable
part at that stage.

===
= DUG.
===
theget
2010-08-21 03:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Sure, and it became an ensemble.  In think Josh became much more the
centre if you could find one... not surprising since Bradley was a
person friend of Aaron's who was at the dinner party where Akiva
Goldman (curse the name) suggested the series.
Did you mean Akiva Goldsman? Why should that name be cursed?

Theget
Duggy
2010-08-21 06:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Sure, and it became an ensemble.  In think Josh became much more the
centre if you could find one... not surprising since Bradley was a
person friend of Aaron's who was at the dinner party where Akiva
Goldman (curse the name) suggested the series.
Did you mean Akiva Goldsman?  Why should that name be cursed?
The writer of Batman & Robin? Why should he be cursed?

===
= DUG.
===
mag3
2010-08-21 10:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Charlie & Zoey mostly happened off-screen (we didn't know they'd
broken up until a season later or something. It was impossible to
tell where Josh & Amy's relationship was going to be at any appearence.
Sam & Mallory just stopped and we didn't see why until a season or so
later. CJ & Danny were the same through most of the series.
In season 7, that changed... possibly looking for resolution of them
(as you say). But by that time Charlie was no longer a regular cast
member and Zoey never was.
Still, they could have worked in a resolution for Zoey & Charlie in season 7
as they did for the others, and yet chose not to. It's not like either were
totally gone. Both did have a few eps that season.
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
I think it'd need to be about Barlet facing war-crimes trials for the
assasination.  Josh trying to work out a way that Santos can stop it.
Assuming Santos is still in office. We could be talking years later, maybe a decade or so.
Time is fluid in The West Wing universe.
Not that much time. Then we're talking "suspension of disbelief," and that's always
hard to swallow.
2006 + 2x 4 year terms, 2014. Add say, 2 years for fluidity... still
have 6 years to do it.
Or, perhaps, not. My point was, the action for any WW movie can happen at any time
afterwards. You might be setting it while Santos is still in office to facilitate your story
about war crimes and Josh intervening. I choose to set it well after that, in order to
focus on the Bartlet "extended family" (including the WW Senior Staff) and how they
are all coming to terms with their lives and Bartlet's eminent death and, thus, how well
Bartlet has set the machine in "perpetual motion" to run after his departure. To me, that's
a much more interesting story. I honestly don't see any value in re-hashing the war crimes
thing at this point. WW was always about people skilled in the art of motivating others
to do things for them in order to facilitate their agendae. So let's see how well Bartlet's
"ultimate setup" worked out.
Post by Duggy
Post by mag3
 The "President" was only supposed to be a "recurring" role, to be seen perhaps
every 4 episodes or so. But Martin Sheen came in and took care of that in very
short order.
Sure, and it became an ensemble. In think Josh became much more the
centre if you could find one...
I really don't see that. Josh was important, yes, and often regulated the temperature
around there as needed but I really don't see him as the center. Perhaps he was more
of a center in season 7, but overall, Bartlet was the center both philosophically and morally.
If it were anyone other than Bartlet, I'd say it was Leo. One of the last things in the last episode....

WWLD?


____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold
Duggy
2010-08-22 09:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
In season 7, that changed... possibly looking for resolution of them
(as you say).  But by that time Charlie was no longer a regular cast
member and Zoey never was.
Still, they could have worked in a resolution for Zoey & Charlie in season 7
as they did for the others, and yet chose not to. It's not like either were
totally gone. Both did have a few eps that season.
True, but where and what would you have added?
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
2006 + 2x 4 year terms, 2014.  Add say, 2 years for fluidity... still
have 6 years to do it.
Or, perhaps, not.  My point was, the action for any WW movie can happen at any time
afterwards. You might be setting it while Santos is still in office to facilitate your story
about war crimes and Josh intervening. I choose to set it well after that, in order to
focus on the Bartlet "extended family" (including the WW Senior Staff) and how they
are all coming to terms with their lives and Bartlet's eminent death and, thus, how well
Bartlet has set the machine in "perpetual motion" to run after his departure. To me, that's
a much more interesting story. I honestly don't see any value in re-hashing the war crimes
thing at this point. WW was always about people skilled in the art of motivating others
to do things for them in order to facilitate their agendae. So let's see how well Bartlet's
"ultimate setup" worked out.
I see the melodrama but no meat to your story. Mine has meat, is set
in The West Wing and has a strong story reason for a "Where Are They
Now?".

Plus the longer you go the less point there is to a film. I think the
perfect film would start 10 seconds after the begining of the flash
forward to season 7... but obviously, we've missed that.
Post by mag3
Post by Duggy
Sure, and it became an ensemble.  In think Josh became much more the
centre if you could find one...
I really don't see that. Josh was important, yes, and often regulated the temperature
around there as needed but I really don't see him as the center.
Perhaps he was more of a center in season 7,
Most of the campaign episodes (every second episode second half of 6,
most of 7). The West Wing-centred episodes were mostly CJ, sometimes
Bartlett. Transistion was, obviously, mostly Santos, a little CJ and
"Tomorrow" was Barlett.
Post by mag3
but overall, Bartlet was the center both philosophically and morally.
The PotUS was obviously the center of the character's universe... even
a semi-regular Pres would have been, and I'll give you morally. But
story-wise I still lean towards Josh.
Post by mag3
If it were anyone other than Bartlet, I'd say it was Leo. One of the last things in the last episode....
Josh had a subplot in almost every episode he was in. Leo helped the
subplots of other mostly.

===
= DUG.
===
mag3
2010-08-22 15:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duggy
Josh had a subplot in almost every episode he was in. Leo helped the
subplots of other mostly.
See post below.

____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold
shawn
2010-08-23 16:43:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:32:13 -0700 (PDT), theget
Post by theget
I was wondering why it was CJ who was chosen to be CoS and not Josh.
Because the writers thought it would be a good way to add in a
campaign and tie the Bartlett administration to the campaign. That's
the only reason I can think of because given what we had seen of Leo
and Josh's roles as CoS and DCoS it was obvious that CJ would be a
poor choice. Especially since CJ didn't even have a DCoS once Josh
was gone. There's too much on the political side that she wasn't
involved with so she wouldn't be ready to take over in that role.
Post by theget
I recall the series ending with a scene of Santos in the Oval with
Josh as CoS.
That was part of their hope to continue the show while tying it back
to old favorites (Josh as CoS, Donna as the First Ladies CoS.) It
didn't work as the show ended but I can't blame them for trying.
Post by theget
Was the campaign a maturing process for Josh? Was he not ready? Did
the campaign actually make him ready for that kind of responsibility?
Josh was probably ready before he went on the campaign. Yes he made
some mistakes along the way as DCoS but much of that was just done by
the writers to provide amusement for the viewers.
Post by theget
There seems to be quite a bit of growth and change for many of the
characters as the Bartlet admin finishes their second term.
It's fun to watch Toby trying to be WH press secretary. I wonder if
part of this is that the writers want to make the point that we've had
a good time watching people do jobs that they're good at most of the
time and they make it look easy, most of the time. But they're hard
jobs to do.
That's a possibility but I go with the idea that they wanted to
provide a way for the show to continue without starting over
completely. So Josh and Donna needed to move on but they didn't want
to bring in a bunch of new people into the West Wing staff so they
just moved the remaining people around.
Post by theget
But still. Why CJ and not Josh? And if not Josh, how could he really
be ready after the campaign?
As stated above it was a decision made by the writers that wasn't
justified by what we had seen from the characters before the change
was made.
Duggy
2010-08-23 23:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
Because the writers thought it would be a good way to add in a
campaign and tie the Bartlett administration to the campaign.
Which echoes reality.
Post by shawn
That's the only reason I can think of because given what we had seen of Leo
and Josh's roles as CoS and DCoS it was obvious that CJ would be a
poor choice.
Note, of course, that in Access they said that she'd stay as press
secretary for the whole of Bartlett's administration. The next
episode they began setting up Leo's departure...
Post by shawn
 Especially since CJ didn't even have a DCoS once Josh
was gone.
She probably did. Josh was DCoS for Legislative Affairs. There are
usually a number of CoSs, although, obviously, we only see on... sort
of like we only ever see 2 speech writers and never see CJ's deputies
(although a couple are mentioned).

CJ, it seems, didn't have someone in charge of legislative affairs
while Josh was away because she was waiting for him to come back...
Post by shawn
There's too much on the political side that she wasn't
involved with so she wouldn't be ready to take over in that role.
You need someone like Josh or Cliff who knows initimately the workings
of the Hill. CJ couldn't do it.
Post by shawn
Post by theget
I recall the series ending with a scene of Santos in the Oval with
Josh as CoS.
That was part of their hope to continue the show while tying it back
to old favorites (Josh as CoS, Donna as the First Ladies CoS.) It
didn't work as the show ended but I can't blame them for trying.
That season 7 was the final was announced long before the end of the
series, it was announced in Jan... and made before John died,
apparently...

I think rather, putting people in those positions was "rewarding" the
characters and giving them closure.
Post by shawn
Post by theget
Was the campaign a maturing process for Josh? Was he not ready? Did
the campaign actually make him ready for that kind of responsibility?
Josh was probably ready before he went on the campaign. Yes he made
some mistakes along the way as DCoS but much of that was just done by
the writers to provide amusement for the viewers.
Josh did Bartlett's politics. He'd keep trying to do that if he was
his CoS. The campiagn allowed him to change his career focus into
being someone who runs things.
Post by shawn
That's a possibility but I go with the idea that they wanted to
provide a way for the show to continue without starting over
completely.
That doesn't mesh with the timeline.
Post by shawn
Post by theget
But still. Why CJ and not Josh? And if not Josh, how could he really
be ready after the campaign?
As stated above it was a decision made by the writers that wasn't
justified by what we had seen from the characters before the change
was made.
Not picking Josh or Toby was... picking CJ wasn't... IMHO.

===
= DUG.
===

Loading...