Sorkin has choked almost any relatable or enjoyable character out of the series at this point by pigeonholing all the characters.
let's see, unnecessary relationship tension & love triangles, filibuster moments, hypermoralism and overt, unwanted speeches, and some of the most onerous speechifying, from perhaps the worst kind of characters, the mary-sue writer's version of a real person, with all the flaws airbrushed out, conversation cut down to phrases and adjectives, etc.
... Boston Legal had fun with this, but i don't think they have the characters for this, ranting really relies on a charismatic, self-aware person to convey a believable morality, the characters that need to be relative and flawed, are only shallow
Will is a charismatic idiot, an empty shell with zero foresight, a drama magnet, alternating between artificially deep and offensively shallow, an obvious mary-sue character that has no actual life.
This might just be the episode i saw, but there's no depth beyond his opinions or shame/guilt/guile on show, it makes his character deeply unlikeable once he starts to talk with aaron sorkin's words.
The show is just going to revolve around his regular inevitable colossal mistakes as he puts his foot in it + content of the week + akward social lives of the staff between content of the week.
So it's west wing + studio 60 + sports night. Instead of the scifi monster of the week, it's moral drama using current/pretend events, the "human monster" without the satire of CSI or boston legal.
Portraying TV news as moral observers, guardians of truth, can only be a trainwreck.
The West Wing can pull it off, as people want to believe the whitehouse is full of better people, who are at the apex of civilisation and power, and are better, wiser, more moral people, etc.
Maybe it'll last long enough make an excellent drinking game for west wing/law show fans.
Shout by TolimanVIP 10BlockedParent2012-07-17T09:48:13Z
Sorkin has choked almost any relatable or enjoyable character out of the series at this point by pigeonholing all the characters.
let's see, unnecessary relationship tension & love triangles, filibuster moments, hypermoralism and overt, unwanted speeches, and some of the most onerous speechifying, from perhaps the worst kind of characters, the mary-sue writer's version of a real person, with all the flaws airbrushed out, conversation cut down to phrases and adjectives, etc.
... Boston Legal had fun with this, but i don't think they have the characters for this, ranting really relies on a charismatic, self-aware person to convey a believable morality, the characters that need to be relative and flawed, are only shallow
Will is a charismatic idiot, an empty shell with zero foresight, a drama magnet, alternating between artificially deep and offensively shallow, an obvious mary-sue character that has no actual life.
This might just be the episode i saw, but there's no depth beyond his opinions or shame/guilt/guile on show, it makes his character deeply unlikeable once he starts to talk with aaron sorkin's words.
The show is just going to revolve around his regular inevitable colossal mistakes as he puts his foot in it + content of the week + akward social lives of the staff between content of the week.
So it's west wing + studio 60 + sports night. Instead of the scifi monster of the week, it's moral drama using current/pretend events, the "human monster" without the satire of CSI or boston legal.
Portraying TV news as moral observers, guardians of truth, can only be a trainwreck.
The West Wing can pull it off, as people want to believe the whitehouse is full of better people, who are at the apex of civilisation and power, and are better, wiser, more moral people, etc.
Maybe it'll last long enough make an excellent drinking game for west wing/law show fans.