Did Sports Night ever do that? (Studio 60 sure didn't IMO). I mean the Dana's dating plan thing wasn't early in the series. There's some great moments there, but I think that's always something where Sorkin has struggled.

This thread or the Breaking Bad s5 thread. Which will be worse in 2 months from now?

This one, by far.

If the reviewers are right- it seems like in 2 months everybody will be so polarized that either it will be the worst thread ever or everybody will have given up.

I actually think most of the debate ITT has been decent. If these are the types of conversations we're having about TV- then the forum is doing it's job. I would much rather argue about this than listen to somebody try to defend Entourage.

I think the Jeremy-Natalie stuff in s2 was very good, and the Dan-Rebecca stuff was awesome (until the ******ed Dan-in-therapy subplot, which wasn't really relationship stuff).

Plus don't forget what may be the hardest-hitting line of dialogue in the entire series: "You're wearing my white shirt." Boom.

Seriously. It's been one episode, and it's already this bad. Goddamn.

Margaret's Oyster allergy line was hilariously delivered

West Wing heads will recognize Jim Harper as Tyler the red Jeep driving teenager from 20 Hours in America

Amanda Peet in Mack's role would've been nice

"Sometimes you just stand there, hip-deep in pie."

(not hard-hitting, just my favorite line)

My favorite line -- not just in Sports Night but in all Sorkin history -- is this monologue from Jeremy (and this was before I even played poker):

Jeremy: A FULL house. Dan already folded the six you needed, and I have the other one. You don't have a house of any sort, you don't have a pup tent. You've got trip sevens, and I have a straight. I want you to trust me right now. I want you to say to yourself, yeah, I've dated a string of jerks in my life, they were stupid, they were mean to me, but maybe this one's different. Maybe I should take a chance and not adopt the break-up-with-him-before-he-breaks-my-heart strategy. I want you to remember that when I started liking you, I didn't stop liking tennis. And I want you to know that I don' t think there's a woman in the world that you need to be threatened by, no matter how glamorous you think she is. But mostly, I want you to trust me, just once, when I tell you you have three sevens, and I have a straight.

As much as I liked that monologue the first time I saw it, I just rewatched that episode this week (along with the AV Club's summer review), and it really left a bad taste in my mouth and is a great example of the problems I have with Sorkin and relationships. In this case, Jeremy is right (as he's ALWAYS right in arguments with Natalie), Natalie is wrong and her feelings aren't valid, and Jeremy treats her like something between a five-year-old and a dog that peed in the living room. "I don't think you should be rewarded for your behavior"-- what a galling, insulting way to talk to a significant other. But, since women are irrational crazy creatures, his POV is validated and it works out for him.

On another note, O/U on number of episodes until Sorkin recycles the "We can't get together because then I would be Lisa Sherborne Seaborn" gag from the West Wing with MacKenzie McHale (McAvoy)?

Definitely before the end of the first season.

And nath -- I think in s2 even though I didn't like the Dan-in-therapy subplot, at least that was a time when the girl was right and the guy was wrong... the shrink lady was pretty much on point and letting Dan dig his own hole.

Sorkin gonna Sorkin. From a man who attempts to bring boomers through the airport in a carry on you probably wouldn't say originality is his bread & butter.

MacKenzie MacHale (McAvoy) does make it slightly more probable tho.

Damn you nath, you're really a fun-suck.

Love the Michale/mcavoy prediction.

This thread is miles better than the Breaking Bad thread. This thread doesn't have people missing out on key plot points or horribly misunderstanding the central ethos of the whole show.

edit: Think about how much people hated my 5 post liveblogging of watching the pilot and compare that to the the weekly 100 post liveblogging of people imitating Michael from Lost in the BB thread.

yeah, i'm gonna get back to watching S2 pretty soon. you may be right, and i'm curious to see it again because it's been such a long time. however, S2 did also gave us the dating plan, which i have run out of superlatives to describe.

Agree with nath. That bit is great on the surface and difficult to take in greater context. Sorkin's mouthpiece characters are insufferably right and wise- which again - undermines the issues he's attempting to address.

This is a forum for discussing TV. If you just want to talk about what was fun I'm sure there's a place for that.

Simmer down, it was a joke.

didn't someone make that prediction 1-2 weeks ago? maybe it was nath then as well? i've definitely read that somewhere already.

I watched ep one again and I can see the flaws a little clearer now. I think I was so happy for another Sorkin show that I was partly blinded by my fanboy-ness. Nonetheless, I still think some of the critiques ITT are silly and baseless.

I cant find a shred of evidence in Sorkins cannon to support the idea he writes poorly for women. Sure they all have failed relationships but so do every single man he writes!

People are confusing the fact that he writes about very smart people in positions of power, which in our society means men will always be in the highest positions. Earlier there was a comment about how Abagail was outshone by her husband. That comment is the perfect example of how people are out to lunch about Sorkin. Her husband is the president of the US for god's sake. She is written as one of the top doctors in the US and a professor at Harvard. Hardly a prostitute role.

Every women Sorkin writes holds a Phd in something or is at the top of their career and among the smartest people on earth.

To pretend that their failed relationships define them as characters is FAR more about your view of women than Sorkins. It's a 1950's Mormon view of women in which no matter how smart of successful they are if they are not married with kids they are viewed as failures or a basket case.

That is clearly not Sorkin's view.

I dont know how many times ITT people have commented that McKenzie McHale is a basket case for some reason even though the show goes out of its way to make it clear she is not only the best EP on earth but among the best and bravest embedded journalist. ITT because she is single she is some kind of basket case!

Then you're not looking hard enough.

Here's a hint: Why is it that despite all their professional credentials (Sorkin is nothing if not credentials-obsessed, after all) the women all turn into five-year-olds when it comes to relationships or a certain man in their lives? Are these otherwise highly competent, capable women just missing something from their brains? Why can't any of their professional acumen translate to being even halfway mature and adult about their personal lives?

Oh, well, as long as a bunch of dialogue SAYS she's super professional, it doesn't matter if she's SHOWN to babble and fawn inexplicably over a man. Expositional dialogue: More important than storytelling, if you ask Clovis!

The rest of your post is pretty much repeating this point: "As long as the characters are described as having lots of credentials and being really good at their job, it doesn't matter if they behave like insane children in their personal lives."

And again you miss the point and manage to insult us in the process. No one cares that they're single; it's that they're complete neurotic messes when it comes to dating and relationships, that they are always inexplicably fawning over some man or otherwise behaving in some lunatic manner-- and that the only thing that can set them straight is a man who can point out how crazy they're acting.

"1950s Mormon view," GMAFB, now you're the one trolling.

I read it somewhere else, so I can't take credit for it. It is an example of something that bothers me about Sorkin-- it's not even a particularly witty or clever line or conceit, but he recycles it, because, well, he's Aaron Sorkin and he has one point of view that he breaks up among various characters in his one character dynamic and he recycles everything.

These would be great points if the men in Sorkin's works were not portrayed EXACTLY like the women. Oh I forgot Josh was a total ladies man, or did he screw up every relationship he ever had. Toby was divorced by his own failings and they dedicated an entire episode to his pathetic home buying attempt. Sam's main relationship was a failed attempt to save a hooker. Leo lost his marriage.

Let's turn to the Newsroom, The ENTIRE premise of the show is That Will has basically had a nervous breakdown complete with hallucinations simply because he was dumped and the only other male relationship we have seen is Don who is portrayed as a using jerk.

This scene simply does not exist. It is not in show. I have seen The West Wing start to end many many times and there is not one scene in which Abagail is portrayed to babble or fawn over the President. It is quite the opposite in fact.

If we are going to make up things to support our points what about that awesome scene in the first episode of The Newsroom in which all the female characters sang and dance around a burning effigy of Gloria Steinam. I can see how some people are viewing that one as evidence of Sorkins's misogyny.

I gotta side with Clovis on this. Nath is accusing Sorkin of **** that's just not there.