Succeeding President Bartlet
January 31st, 2005
The New York Times has an interesting article exploring the dilemma facing the producers of The West Wing as they complete their sixth season and face the retirement of Jed Bartlet. Clearly someone has to move into the White House before the season ends, but the producers claim not to know which party’s candidate they’ll choose. What complicates matters is that the contract with NBC, the network which broadcasts the show in the US, expires at the end of the season.
I’d have thought that on purely practical grounds the producers would want to have a Democrat win the race for the White House. I know that US administrations appoint the odd cabinet secretary regardless of past political affiliation, and many mid-level appointees running individual departments will initially remain in place, at least until the new administration decides who it wants to move, but the focus of The West Wing has always been on the executive office staff rather than the cabinet or the civil service. In real life, I have the impression that few presidential aides survive the transfer of power between the two parties.
Surely this implies that if the White House goes Republican then pretty much the entire cast will have to be replaced? If the show was safely contracted for another two seasons then the producers could get away with introducing a whole new cast of presidential aides on the assumption that they could spend the next season or two letting the audience get used to them, but would NBC really be willing to sign up for another couple of seasons of a show which had just ditched 95% of the cast from the first six seasons?
[Via feeling listless]
February 1st, 2005 at 6:56 am
I suspect that the most likely outcome is that this is the last season for the show. Ratings have been dropping and dropping over the last couple of years. I’d be more upset about the possibility if I didn’t feel that the John Wells episodes have, overall, been generally less good than Sorkin’s. Much less focus on rapid witty dialogue, and lots more melodramatic silliness, and more characters get shot or bombed hospitalized or a major plot element of an episode is THE GIANT METEOR THAT MAY HIT EARTH!!! or Bartlett has a Magic Plan for Arab-Israeli Peace and so on. I still watch religiously, but grumble where I didn’t use to dream of doing so.
“In real life, I have the impression that few presidential aides survive the transfer of power between the two parties.”
Political aides, yeah. People like the Christian Slater minor character can carry over. Occasionally there are political aides who swing both ways, such as David Gergen, who worked for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. Or are technicians, like Dick Morris. But it is rare. Yes, I would tend to think it would be difficult to elect Alan Alda, the Republican, and not have to transition a number of other folks in and out; but that’s in no way an insuperable obstacle; ER has gone through a huge number of characters over the years, and the only original characters left are Noah Wylie’s John Carter, and Sherry Stringfield as Susan Lewis, and she was gone for about five years in between starting, and then being brought back. I can imagine President Alda’s character, say, asking Josh to come back, and Donna, while CJ, Toby, and Leo disappear, among many other possible mixes.
After all, Rob Lowe left a few years ago, and you may not be aware that in the present season, um, several characters already no longer work for the White House, but on campaigns; as well, in recent episodes only a few characters appear; we’ve had several episodes with no appearance from at leave five major characters at a time. (I hope this is sufficiently spoiler-free.)
Oh, and we already have running “guest” characters who are aides to both Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits; whether they would stay on, I have no idea, of course. So far none seem terribly well-equipped with personalities.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:31 am
The ER comparison did occur to me, but that transition took place over the course of a few years, so that when Carter ended up stepping into Mark Greene’s shoes the audience already knew all the majority of new characters he was working with pretty well. In TWW you’d have the entire First Family, plus most of their aides and advisors, disappearing over the course of the gap between election night and inauguration day - perhaps two or three episodes at best, unless the producers decided to string the process out a bit.
If the producers were assured of another season or two then they might pull it off, but as it stands the network would be faced with buying a show in the early stages of a major transition. It’d be like renewing Star Trek: Voyager for another season right after they got back to Earth: the one thing you know is that the old crew will have dispersed, and you have to decide whether it’s really worth watching the ship with an entirely new crew, having an entirely different type of adventure, but retaining the show’s name.
(Upon reflection, that’s not such a good analogy. First, nobody not drawing a salary from the show wanted to see more of Voyager by the time season 7 came to a close. Second, given how dull many of the characters were a complete change of crew might have been a good idea. Third, the Star Trek universe offers possibilities for turning back the clock not available to the residents of the White House: I can just see the writers having the crew of the Voyager arrive back at Earth only to run straight into a temporal anomaly and find themselves zapped back through space and time into the Delta Quadrant. Only this time round they know what’s facing them so the first order of business is for the Maquis and the sensible crew members to get together and mutiny so that Janeway spends the trip in the brig this time round. Then find the nearest godlike being or highly advanced civilisation and do whatever it takes in order to persuade it to propel you back across the galaxy doublequick. And while you’re at it, stay away from the bloody Borg this time round!)
February 1st, 2005 at 9:20 pm
“In TWW you’d have the entire First Family, plus most of their aides and advisors, disappearing over the course of the gap between election night and inauguration day - perhaps two or three episodes at best, unless the producers decided to string the process out a bit.”
What I think you may be missing is that this process has already been ongoing for over six or more episodes, and is continuing throughout the season. Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits are in the credits, and taking up the majority of time on camera, while, as I said, older characters are missing episode after episode. So the transition won’t be “two or three at best,” but is taking place over the entire season of — I’m not sure if the order is 22 or 24 or 26, but whichever of those, episodes. And reportedly the putative next season would also engage in looks at ex-President Bartlett, as well.
What’s going to control what happens won’t be transitioning the characters, but simply the economics of the ratings, and as I said, my suspicion is that this will be the end this year. But we’ll see.
What actually does bother me is that this season of Enterprise has been so great for any old-line Trekkie; overally, Manny Coto has done an amazing, fantastic, superduper job in turning the show around from the Berman/Braga first three years. Shran the Anderorian, Jeffrey Combs, has been wonderful, plus the Orions complete with slave girls, the three-part Vulcan saga with the Forge, Sehlats, Surak, and a history of Vulcan that makes sense of all that’s been wonky about Vulcans in Enterprise, the Khan-related Augments and a nice turn by Brent Spiner, an episode with the creator of the transporter, an episode with what were revealed to be Organians, the just broadcast “Babel One,” with a conference on Babel, Andorians and Tellarites at each other, “Unity” next week bringing together those two, plus Earth and Vulcan for an alliance….
And coming up, the origins of the Mirror Universe (earth folk in Montana lynched the Vulcans when they landed after Zephram Cochran’s flight), the begining of a trade/protection organization between Earth, Vulcan, Andoria and Tellar….
Great stuff!
And the show is almost sure to be cancelled, because the ratings are in the toilet. The price is being paid for years of Voyager and Berman and Braga. It’s just a crying shame.
February 1st, 2005 at 11:17 pm
As you might have guessed from my cluelessness about the pace of the transition, we UK terrestrial viewers are miles behind the US: for us, Sam has only just left to run for Congress and the end of Jed Bartlet’s second term is a long way away. I didn’t pick up on just where in the current US season we are - I gather they’ve got a good half season left to play out the transitional storyline. I hope that if the show does end the network at least give the producers sufficient notice to permit them to come up with a proper finale instead of leaving everything dangling.
We’re equally far behind as regards Enterprise, which made it to the end of season 2 on terrestrial TV about a year ago now. However, there’s no sign that season 3 is going to show up any time soon, and I have a feeling that Channel 4 (who hold the UK terrestrial rights) will move the show from the Sunday teatime slot it occupied to a post-midnight slot alongside Andromeda - and when I say “post-midnight”, I mean 3am! I’ve read enough terrible reviews of season 3 to make me suspect that not seeing it is probably a blessing, but it’s a shame to hear that they’ve finally turned the show round just a bit too late to squeeze past that ratings black hole it’s been plummeting towards ever since it limped out of spacedock.
The question is, what do Paramount do now? The films have been underperforming for years, now the latest TV series looks likely to fall short. Assuming that Manny Coto isn’t given a chance to revive the franchise with another Trek series, do you think they should let Trek lie dormant for a few years and revive it when fans start to miss their weekly dose of idealism and space opera? Or is the problem simply that the show’s time has passed?
It just doesn’t seem right that Battlestar Galactica looks to have a brighter future (so to speak) than Star Trek…
February 3rd, 2005 at 12:18 am
Well, that didn’t take long.