re: Sorkin Approached to Write Steve Jobs Movie

quote:

---

He presented a balanced spectrum, often showing how the elitist, a-hole, liberal writers were wrong/dumb/offbase.

---

What a crock. He most certainly did not.

One reason I liked the West Wing was that he didn't present the conservative view as garbage. In seven years, he really only had one evil republican character.

Once he got to Studio 60,he forgot how to show a balanced spectrum.

quote:

---

But it was full of liberalism.

---

That makes TigerMyth's criticism even dumber then.

I've not watched enough West Wing to comment, but if it's "full of liberalism" as you say, then why would a viewer hate one show because "he's on his liberal soap box" but claim the other (which is just as "full of liberalism") to be one of the greatest things in American TV?

Again, I think Sorkin is clearly liberal and loves to show it off in the way he writes television. I also think he tries to write in conservative foils that aren't hair-brained maniacs (like Harriet in Studio 60 - sure she was crazy, but no more crazy than left-wing, pill-popping Matt). Also, Studio 60 did an arc about the troops, their nobility and how we should trust our American military, etc. That's not exactly a liberal talking point. Also, it was current.. it came out during the Bush administration.

Chuck Norris is a HUGE conservatard

He founded the party, right?

I bet anything he fricked Sarah Palin.

If anything, I think that Mamet speaks down to the audience. And I mean that in a good way. He'll slow down the pace and overemphasize a point, but he can do it in a manner where it doesn't seem like he's pandering.

quote:

---

He'll slow down the pace

---

Odd that you say that, because his big thing is always keeping the story moving and not doing a lot of extra shite that doesn't expressly advance the story.

Did you ever see that missive that he wrote to the writers of The Unit?

quote:

---

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

---

LINK