Commander in Chief ongoing thread (1 Viewer)

[Jerome Grate]

Wrong time for me too, I watched it and enjoyed it but not enough to steer me away from House.

 

[Ken Chan]

In that case, The West Wing is now on DVD

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

I read it did good up against strong competition. I'm glad. I really enjoyed it too. Geena Davis and Donald Sutherland plus Kyle Secor take it up a notch and I found the writing to be very good. Like her son too. He was a contestant on last years Reality show, Manhunt.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

OK, finally took a look at the recording from TiVo number 2.

I thought the writing sucked. The dialogue, in particular, was dreadful. And the whole thing feels phony as a three-dollar bill. No presidential candidate, of either party, would actually put someone not a member of his/her party on the ticket for any reason, period. Why couldn't they just have the woman elected president? Because if her election is possible, then it undercuts the premise of the show, which is that there is something realy revolutionary and somewhat unacceptable about the idea. If this series were being made in the 60s or early 70s, this might make sense, but today? It is laughable.

The leading candidate in most polls for the Democratic nomination in 2008 is Senator Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side there is a serious grass-roots movement to draft Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice to head their ticket in 2008. It is entirely possible that American voters will chose between two women to lead the nation in 2008 and not only will the Republic not fall, but nobody who is actually voting (as opposed to the punditocracy) will think it is all that big a deal.

(A recent poll showed that 90 percent of Americans say they'd be willing to support a woman candidate for President - which may actually understate the level of support because the publicity surrounding Sen. Clinton's presumptive run probably means a certain number of "no" votes came from people who were thinking of her in particular rather than women candidates in general. The senator is a very polarizing figure, as disliked by those who don't support her as she is loved by those who do. Since it is widely believed that she will be the first major party presidential candidate and at the very next election it is hard to see how attitudes toward her would not affect the results of that poll. Take the senator out of the equation and I suspect between 95 and 98 percent of voters would have said "yes".)

In a world that has already seen Gold Meir, Indira Ghandi and Margaret Thatcher, the idea that a democracy can be led by a strong woman is neither shocking nor controversial. (If Margaret Thatcher had been an American citizen she could almost certainly have won the Republican nomination in the 80s and might well have won the general election.)

The whole dramatic raison d'etre of Commander-in-Chief is essentially phony, and without that, all you've got is a pale imitation of The West Wing with less interesting characters. Yes, the first week ratings were impressive. But I won't call this show a success until I see the third week ratings. I think the massive publicity campaign (including tons of free publicity courtesy of press coverage of the concept and side-bars on the show's relation to real politics) led to a lot of people tuning in to see what all the noise was about. A fair number of them may be back for week two to see if the show gets any better or to give it a fair chance (because it is always tough to judge a series by a single episode, especially the pilot.) But I week three I think the ratings will be down significantly because I don't think there's anything compelling enough to tempt people away from other, better, shows.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Patrick_S]

It's happened before so it could happen again.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Joe...It's a TV show.

I thought the writing was pretty good. This show has much more dramatic tension than any of the medical clones or Lost clones this season that's for sure.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

OK, let's add the caveat "Absent a Civil War" and understand that we are talking about American presidents in the period since the rise of political parties and the constitutional ammendment that ended the original scheme of having the top two vote-getters become President and Vice-President. The point is the notion is utterly unthinkable under modern political circumstances and since this is a contemporary series, that should count for something.

And yes, of course it is "just a TV show". But that isn't an excuse for lame plots, bad dialogue and total implausibility from a show that aspires to realism. I don't expect The Drew Carey Show to be true-to-life because that isn't its brief and it makes no claim to realism. C-in-C sets itself up as a realistic look at a hypothetical situation and as a series drama. I am just judging it according to its own standards and I find it wanting as speculation and as drama. It may be "just a TV show" but that's no excuse for its being a bad TV show.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Who said that this show aspires to realism? How 'real' are any other TV shows? Why can't it just be enjoyed for what it is?

Glenn

 

[Paul McElligott]

A pale imitation of The West Wing?

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Who said it didn't? Unless a show, especially a drama, explicitly says it is not going for realism, I assume that it is and judge it accordingly.



I've read several articles about the show and the creator and writer have said this show is not the West Wing since it is in fact focusing on the characters life and less about the political side of things.

 

[Ken Chan]

Possible like the Cubs winning the Series -- uh, next season.

Comparisons to The West Wing are inevitable, but does that mean that every single presidential show from now until the end of time will be some imitation, pale or otherwise?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

No, possible like the Red Sox winning last season - or this season. Statistically not the most likely outcome from the vantage point of spring training maybe (which is about where we are in relation to the 2008 presidential race) but hardly impossible.

Right now the odds are about 90% that at least one of the major political parties will nominate a woman and the odds of that woman winning the White House are just about 50/50. No flying cars or laser beams required.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Rob T]

It was ok, but it didn't really grab me like The West Wing pilot did.

 

[Ken Chan]

In 2008? Doesn't matter; there is no way to ever prove or disprove those numbers (from our fixed vantage point inside this one universe). If I say it's only about 60%; no matter what happens, which one of us was right?

And come on, it's the Cubs

 

[Marty M]

I have noticed a new trend this season, that there are commercials every 10 minutes, instead of on the quarter hour. Several shows have commercials coming at 50 minutes past the hour.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> The point is the notion is utterly unthinkable under modern political circumstances

But they need that to set up the conflict on the show.

The West Wing isn't realistic, either.

If you want realism in politics, watch C-SPAN.

 

[Ken Chan]

This may have started last season, especially on ABC. With Lost, they went from four to five acts/segments. Shows also avoid commercials after the credits, and between shows. So from beginning to end, there are more breaks and more commercial time.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Good call Chris.

 

[DavidBC]

Does anyone know how the second episode of this did, ratings-wise? I'm curious to know what the drop-off is, if any (I know I at least wathced it again).

 

[Don Black]

From Variety:

"As Fox shifted to baseball, both "My Name is Earl" (5.9 rating/15 share in adults 18-49, 12.9 million viewers overall) and ABC's "Commander in Chief" (4.8/12 in 18-49, 16.6 million viewers overall) were up more than 10% vs. last week when they faced "House" in the 9 o'clock hour."