I find it strange that some of you think that this was not all set up. Just because the thing was live doesn't mean the thing wasn't completely scripted and rehearsed plenty of times. There may have even been cue cards around the cameras, or cheat sheets on the candidates' notes (though I'm unsure if they actuallly had them). The one place that I thought there may have been a mistake was in the begining, when Vinnick first spoke of throwing out the rules. There was a rather lengthy pause before his lines.

I really felt this episode was more of a gimick than anything. I don't think the fact that the show was live did anything better for the show. I actually think that if it had been done like the rest of the episodes, that much of the dialogue could have been done better. Acted better. Felt better. Etc.

I am quite biased though. Game On was literally my favorite episode of the series. And IMO, in comparison, this is the equivalent of some Charmed writing.

I dunno. That part seemed scripted. The way the camera cut from Santos to Sawyer ... it was a planned hesitation. As to the script and cue cards, you could see both Alda and Smits looking to the prompter for guidance quite often. Alda covered it a little better.

das

I'm always finding myself echoing the sentiments of Daniel-A.

Geez Louise, of course this was all scripted. Live means live, not improvised.

BTW, politically, I would be in the Santos camp, but I think Vinick won the debate.

That hesitation was absolutely scripted. The coverage of this upcoming episode (as seen on ET and other entertainment shows) said that something would happen at the beginning of the debate that would change the rest of it...this was it.

Alda is obviously more comfortable doing live stuff thanks to his stage work...that's probably why he came off as the "winner", even though Smits' character had some of the better lines/arguments.

I did note that Smits' was cribbing lines off his handkerchief when he was walking out to the stage (anyone else catch that?) and I'm sure they had notes and teleprompters in the studio to crib off of as well. The only "error" that I really saw was Alda reaching into his pocket for his pen (before the "I will veto it with this pen" line) and realizing the pen was sitting on the podium.

Also, Vinick's wife is dead, right? Does Vinick normally still wear his wedding ring? Alda was wearing his, but I wasn't sure if this was a "mistake" or if his character always wears a wedding ring.

It seemed to me as though the hesitation was not only scripted but was a call out to some of the struggles that Bush had during the debates last year -- I think the audence was supposed to believe that the dumb Republican just froze only to find out that he actually had a great idea.

I agree with these comments:

1) I think Alda is a better actor than Smits is. If the show were likely to continue past this election, I would hate to imagine them actually going with Smits over Alda. That doesn't seem to be much of a concern given the show's ratings, though.

2) I think that on a policy analysis only, this debate was designed to be won by Santos, particularly among the show's demographic.

3) I think it is unlikely we'll ever get a debate like this because the people who control the campaigns would be horrified of a mistake. The dog and pony shows shall continue in real life.

Smits got all the good lines and won plenty of the arguments, Alda is the better actor and seemed more real. I can see the argument for each person "winning" the debate.

Sawyer and the audience were a different story. They "felt" like actors and it seemed a little cheesy whenever the audience "oooh'd" or yelled out.

i think both actors did a great job considering this was live and there was ALOT of dialogue. btw, isn't forrest sawyer an abc newsman?

Agreed. Smits and Alda were so good together, nailing so many overlapping lines of dialogue, that it made the audience and Sawyer seem really lame.

das

He's pretty much been with the big three at one time or another. Most recently with NBC though.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0768161/

I thought the episode was okay. both actors did an excellent job considering the amount of dialogue and its overlapping nature. Both delivered solid arguments and rebuttals though I could have lived without the moderator, the audience and the Ellen intro which seemd out of place (though I know AmEx had to get their time in).

Yeah lisa that was the one thing I appreciated it about it being live. Since it was live they had one major advertiser and only 1 commercial break (iirc). I'm all for less commercials. :up:

I came into this thread thinking that everyone was going to hate this episode, but it seems to have received a positive response. For my part (having been a fan for years), I really disliked the episode. I found it to be tedious to watch and nothing like the debate episodes of the old WW (Game On). Oh, well, just my two cents.

It does seem to me that Santos did better in calling Vinnik out for his lack of any detailed plans. I think this episode was designed to make it look like the public is being given a glimpse into what type of man Santos is.

This is where I think Vinnick made a mistake. He never should have given Santos the opportunity to build a personality in the eyes of the country. By having them go off the rules, he handed Santos the debate.

This will be then used to close that 9 point gap.

Let's face it, in the end both candidates were really just espousing the different viewpoints of the government's role in our life. If you agree with one view, then you think that candidate did better. The point of the debate was to really introduce to the country who Santos is as a person. To get the middle on his side.

I agree that this was nothing like the old WW but I think many people view the current WW as a spinoff and move from there. In actuality, I stopped watching the show a few weeks ago and just returned for this episode. One thing that I forgot to mention was I loved Santos' line about bullet control b/c all I could think of was the Chris Rock routine where he said more or less the same thing.

I liked this episode because it showed that both sides can have reasonable and viable explanations for their viewpoints, and I think both candidates came off looking like reasonable and competant leaders. Both parties want what is best for the country, but have different ways of "getting there". I was very glad one side wasn't "demonized" over another.

Too bad we will never see an actual political debate like this.

I was laughing and thinking the same thing.

"Man I would shoot your ass if I could afford it!"

"I guarantee there would be no more 'innocent bystanders'"

I thought the acting was terrible in this episode. To me, both of them seemed to stumble over the words. I never thought I would see something that would actually increase my respect for both Bush and Kerry.

The funniest part of the episode was all the applause Santos got. I think the only time Vinick got applause was when he asked people to clap for the grand canyon.

In the West Wing world, I think Santos would be considered the winner because he was supposed to be an underdog in a debate vs. Vinick. I thought Vinick did a much better job though. One big thing to me was that Santos was caught in 2 blatant lies. It was hilarious when he was asked if Vinick was only bringing up the border issues because Santos is hispanic and Santos said no. And I loved how he was called out on the number 1 in math and science line, although it's ridiculous that it would anger the audience member so much.

I got the idea that even some of that was scripted. It seemed to me that you could look at the actors (particularly Smits) and tell when errors were scripted and when they weren't.

I thought this was a very entertaining episode, and being a republican obviously I leaned towards Alda here but it is obvious that Santos was supposed to win. Gimmick or not it was worth it. I thought it was nice that they did this episode twice so the West Coast got it live too. If they carry on the series they should stick with the formula that the president is a small part of the show would be better.

Wait, instead of taping the live show from the east coast airing and replaying it (a la SNL) they actually had 2 different showings? That's pretty impressive.Wonder if anyone watched both airings.

:lol: I was just curious if there were any major differences between the shows. It would be pretty interesting if some of the debate topics had been changed or if there was live feedback for the east coast show, making the west coast one different.

Here's one difference:

On the west-coast version, he pulls the pen out of his jacket...

I agree 100%. It all seemed very forced to me. Maybe the lines weren't scripted word for word, but their actions, style, tone, and points certainly were IMO. The audience reaction also seemed very forced.

The episode didn't do much for me. That being said, I'd be lying if I said I didn't want a real debate in presidential races.