Commander in Chief Forums

ABC (ended 2006)

Let's make a list of things that turned viewers off

  • Avatar of 77517

    77517

    [1]Sep 26, 2006
    • member since: 08/12/05
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 17
    I’ve followed “the buzz” on CiC online since its
    inception. I remember what people complained about and what reasons
    people gave for deciding to stop watching the show. I also observed
    that the show developed and was shaped based on the criticism and
    feedback it was getting online. I honestly believe that network execs
    and producers either read the buzz on IMDB, tv.com, and elsewhere online or else
    hire people to comb the internet and report back to them with the buzz. TV.com is chock-full of information about everything that's ever been on TV, and it has a lot of posters on the message boards, so it has to
    be a HUGE source of buzz and feedback for the makers of these shows.

    When people complained that the show was becoming too WB-like
    because they showed the kids too much and Becca whined too much, Bochco
    came in and showed the kids very little in episodes 9-11. Then when
    people complained that they never showed the kids anymore, he had them
    have that party in the White House in episode 12. When people
    complained about the moustache-twirling-villain nature of Nathan
    Templeton and his constant efforts to undermine Mac (and him always
    being foiled again), Bochco made Nathan and Mac civil and buddy-buddy
    in episodes 9-12. When people complained that Mac always solves the
    crises at hand and always wins in the end, and the conflicts last only
    one episode, Bochco created the North Korea crisis plot and the missing
    weapons in Pakistan plot, which extended into the following episodes.
    When people complained that Mac was too saintly, too kind, and too
    perfect, Bochco had her offer Frank Terzano “absolutely nothing” in
    episode 12.

    Then when people complained that Dickie was the jackass, the Jar
    Jar Binks of the show, Johnson & Co. made him into even more of a
    jerk so that Mac could fire him in the last episode so they could be
    rid of him. When people complained that Nathan & Mac were too
    buddy-buddy, Johnson turned him back into her enemy. When people
    complained that the characters weren’t shown interacting enough and
    didn’t have enough of an interesting back story, they started showing
    scenes from their personal lives, such as Kelly and Vince’s friendship,
    Vince’s marriage to his partner, Kelly’s ex-husband, and Jim’s friend
    with whom he discussed becoming Vice President.

    So, anyway, I thought it would be helpful if we made a list of
    things that we remember to have been mentioned as turn-offs to the
    viewers, to help the creators and producers secure high ratings as they
    make the TV movie and any future episodes. Like I said in another
    thread, I personally don’t care, just as long as I get to see Geena
    Davis every week. But what have others complained about? Add to my list
    if I forget something. I don’t mean for you to list things like the
    many hiatuses, the change in schedule, the firing of Rod Lurie, the
    firing of Bochco, and the negative press surrounding the changes in
    showrunners. I’m asking you what in the CONTENT of the show turned
    viewers off. I think they could use a little reminder.

    1. the simplicity

    2. the slow pacing

    3. Mac always solving the crisis at hand within one episode and the crises never extending into more than one other episode

    4. Mac was too saintly, too perfect, too much of a superhero

    5. the inaccuracies, mistakes, and unrealistic nature – the
    creators didn’t do their homework and/or didn’t have good enough
    consultants/political and historical advisors

    6. the emasculation of Rod

    7. Dickie was a dumb character – the Jar Jar binks of the show

    8. Nathan was a moustache-twirling villain, and Mac always defeated
    him in the end. And yet he continued to try to undermine her and nobody
    in Washington seemed to know he was doing that or call him on it
    publicly.

    9. Then Nathan and Mac became too friendly and civil, and people couldn’t stomach that either.

    10. Republicans were presented as villains, and the Democrats were hardly shown.

    11. They didn’t develop the characters enough or show them relate
    to each other. All right, we know that Mac was a wife and mother of
    three, that she had been VP, that she had served in Congress for 4
    years, that she had been the chancellor of the University of Richmond,
    that she had been a prosecutor before that, and that she had grown up
    on Connecticut. What else? Why are we supposed to sympathize with her?
    Just because she’s a woman? The people at www.fanfiction.net have done
    a better job of writing back stories for her than the creators of the
    show. What about her staff and family? What about Nathan? What are
    their back stories? Why does Mac want to be President? Why does Nathan
    want to be President?

    12. They showed too much of these underdeveloped kid characters,
    which made the show seem too WB-like, and then they didn’t show enough
    of them, which only emphasized how underdeveloped they were.

    13. Becca was too whiny in the first few episodes, and everyone got tired of her.

    14. Amy’s obsession with sugar was a bit too much, and she was too sugary sweet.

    15. The show had a soap opera quality. People found the “Cabinet
    members resigning on Mac” and “characters, particularly Nathan,
    betraying Mac” plotlines boring and tiring.

    16. Mac’s speeches could have been written better.



    Please add your thoughts to my list.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Pinkmyst

    Pinkmyst

    [2]Oct 23, 2006
    • member since: 10/19/05
    • level: 24
    • rank: Golden Girl
    • posts: 667

    I never stopped watching the show, I loved it and I was sad to see it end.

    I agree with you that Dickie was a dumb character.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Finalsequel

    Finalsequel

    [3]Dec 31, 2006
    • member since: 05/02/05
    • level: 30
    • rank: Anchorman
    • posts: 1,793
    77517 wrote:
    3. Mac always solving the crisis at hand within one episode and the crises never extending into more than one other episode


    This was my major gripe with the show. I wanted some complex storyline that came along and took more than one or two episodes to solve. I think the North Korean crisis could've been soooo much more than it was.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of pidge2k

    pidge2k

    [4]Feb 12, 2007
    • member since: 04/10/06
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 12
    The show was just to unrealistic.  The president sends her kids to public school?  Her successes are all too perfect world solutions.  She never lost.  Mac is supposed to be independant but she is by far more left leaning than Jed Bartlet from WW.  The characters were boring, especially the kids.  Dialogue was poor.  Maybe I shouldn't compare it to WW but I still think on its own, it lacked alot.  I wish they would make it more realistic. 
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Elliot341

    Elliot341

    [5]Feb 12, 2007
    • member since: 10/14/06
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 188

    I'd agree with all of those flaws.

    There's another flaw I've noticed. From the outset, the West Wing/Commander In Chief comparisons were almost unavoidable, but I think CinC may have actually copied several plots from TWW. The "sub stuck North Korean waters" and "DEA agents missing in Latin America" had both been done on TWW already, and I think there were a few others copied as well.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Princess_Pinky

    Princess_Pinky

    [6]Mar 12, 2007
    • member since: 09/28/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 1,073

    77517 wrote:
    When people complained about the moustache-twirling-villain nature of Nathan Templeton and his constant efforts to undermine Mac (and him always being foiled again), Bochco made Nathan and Mac civil and buddy-buddy in episodes 9-12.

    There were changes in the writers somewhere in the middle, I believe it was around episode nine, where the characters noticably changed personalities. (Nathan was supposed to be the hardcore, j****** Republican and once the new writers took hold of the show, they considerablly softened his character.)

    IMO, it was a political move in favor of Republicans. I also believe CiC being taken off the air in the first place was a political move, as fans were quite obviously watching. (The Golden Globes, anyone?)

    Edited on 03/12/2007 12:06am
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Elliot341

    Elliot341

    [7]Jun 26, 2007
    • member since: 10/14/06
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 188

    I used to quite like CinC, but watching repeats of it again I began to dislike it. I never actually saw the first few eps before and only just saw the pilot today, but I didn't like it much. The dialogue is simplistic and cheesy, the political factsare all wrong, with a ridiculous amount of idealism attempting to substitute for it and the show overall just lacks realism and insight into the nature of the White House. The comparison betweenCinC and The West Wing is inevitable and if you compare the two, CinC comes off looking like "The West Wing for Dummies" or something.

    I'm not saying it shouldn't come back, I do think some of later eps in S1 were a bit better, but it needs a lot of tweaks if it's gonna ever return for S2.

    Edited on 06/26/2007 9:11am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.