Anyone watching? The premier is tonight...
Looks like it'll be amazing. The promos have been great.
Anyone watching? The premier is tonight...
Looks like it'll be amazing. The promos have been great.
|by Anonymous||reply 435||12/17/2014|
It got quite a few bad reviews from the critics.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||06/24/2012|
The show was worth making just on the strength of that pre-credits opener, imho.
That was one brilliant -- and TRUE -- piece of writing.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||06/24/2012|
SO true, #2.
I love Aaron Sorkin's work.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||06/24/2012|
"We used to make war on poverty instead of the poor."
Damn, that's pretty.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||06/24/2012|
I'm actually loving it so far.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||06/24/2012|
Love Alison Pill, btw...
|by Anonymous||reply 6||06/24/2012|
Is it super preachy like all of Sorkins other work?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||06/24/2012|
"Speaking Truth to stupid"
I love that.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||06/24/2012|
"... I have a [italic]BLOG[/italic]?!?"
|by Anonymous||reply 9||06/24/2012|
"I'm too old to be governed by fear of stupid people."
|by Anonymous||reply 10||06/24/2012|
Aaron Sorkin's writing was much better when it was done in a drug-fueled psychosis.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||06/24/2012|
Did anyone else notice that the voice of the guy being interviewed by Jeff Daniels was Jesse Eisenberg?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||06/24/2012|
Not sure what you're talking about. I thought the writing was great. I love this show so far. Great premier.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||06/24/2012|
Loved it! I was almost scared off of this thing by the bad reviews, but then I realized it's the pundit class that's been giving this bad reviews, because it makes them look like such morons
|by Anonymous||reply 14||06/24/2012|
"We just decided to."
God, I wish someone at CNN would watch this and take it to heart.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/24/2012|
Very interesting that the reviews were so terrible, but the show is terrific.
This was being equated to his massive failure "Sunset Strip" and that simply is not the case. It was also one of the best looking and most dramatically efficient shows HBO has ever put together. It felt luxurious to have Sorkin writing it and Thomas Newman writing the score. They spent a lot on this, and it showed in the right ways.
Yes, he can get somewhat clumsy when he writes romance, but otherwise that script was cracking. Some quite good performances in there, and the casting is spot on.
This is a thousand times better than GoT and the gigantic disastrous messes that are Treme and True Blood.
I'm looking forward to the rest of the season. If this show stays at this level HBO might actually be in my good graces again.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||06/24/2012|
The guy who got the two phone calls... the new EP... is just fucking adorable.
And the old PE is such an asshole.
I already love the characters.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||06/24/2012|
The show was indeed super-preachy like (almost) all of Aaron Sorkin's work (The Social Network, was not, because it was an adapted screenplay.)
Can anyone answer a single question in an Aaron Sorkin script without endless exposition?
Emily Mortimer was not as awful as she usually is, which is a compliment.
There was a woman on Howie Kurtz's CNN media show this morning who fairly damned it was faint, condescending praise by saying something along the lines of the show being "very much like cable newsrooms 10 years ago."
That being said, I liked it!!
|by Anonymous||reply 18||06/24/2012|
That's John Gallagher, Jr. Tony award winner for that musical he did with Lea Michelle.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||06/24/2012|
I love how citing of facts is always labeled as "super-preachy".
I love that a show is saying things that need to be said.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||06/24/2012|
[quote]the pundit class that's been giving this bad reviews, because it makes them look like such morons
|by Anonymous||reply 21||06/24/2012|
"I love how citing of facts is always labeled as "super-preachy".
Please R20, when the fuck was the last time you or one of your colleagues used extensive excerpts from Don Quixote to make a point?
|by Anonymous||reply 22||06/24/2012|
Really liked the first show. Sunset Strip suffered from being a basic network show. HBO gives its shows a lot of freedom. Many actors, producers and directors rave about now being a great time for television because of the original shows being done by pay cable.
And Emily Mortimer's little senior producer is adorable.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||06/24/2012|
[quote]Please [R20], when the fuck was the last time you or one of your colleagues used extensive excerpts from Don Quixote to make a point?
Okay, let me rephrase: I love how any sort of intelligent writing or conversation or anything that doesn't talk down to the lowest denominator is "super-preachy".
|by Anonymous||reply 24||06/25/2012|
I thought John Gallagher, Jr. was especially good. For the record, he won a Tony Award for "Spring Awakening" on Broadway. Yes, Lea Michelle was also in the musical, but the star was Jonathan Groff.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||06/25/2012|
[quote] when the fuck was the last time you or one of your colleagues used extensive excerpts from Don Quixote to make a point?
Please - middlebrow entertainment aiming at higher meaning (and failing). That "Don Quixote" stuff wasn't from Cervantes at all, but the watered-down musical version "Man of La Mancha" (as Jeff Daniels' character so rightly pointed out). And Sorkin is illiterate - Quixote rode a horse called Rosinante - it was Sancho Panza who rode the mule.
It's a pandering preachy moralistic show that has good dialogue but an unrealistic, soft marshmallow center. The characters aren't interesting, complicated, real people, but archetypes that spout the party line. The numbers will be small and like "Studio 60" it will be gone after one season. It's Scott Rudin kissing Sorkin's ass for writing "The Social Network".
|by Anonymous||reply 26||06/25/2012|
Oh OK R24, but then the word you are looking for is pretentious.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||06/25/2012|
You sure this was HBO? I didn't see a single set of tits all episode.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||06/25/2012|
R18, I heard that comment on Reliable Sources this morning and watched the show with that in mind. I think she was flat out wrong. This seems very contemporary to me. Ratings are even more important today because there are so few news dollars available. TV is competing with print and the internet way more than it was 10 years or more ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||06/25/2012|
Given the show takes place two years in the past, I wouldn't expect it to be completely *current*...
|by Anonymous||reply 30||06/25/2012|
Sorkin's writing is sometimes --even often times-- preachy, but it's sometimes --even often times-- good. The writing is heavy-handed, especially in its political persepctive (even if I'm mostly in agreement), and the idealism quotient is sometimes overbearing, but often it's the least bits that I like most.
Sorkin gets some points for dense, rapid-fire dialogue, for placing a value on words, for at least wanting to ask his audience to keep up instead of the usual dumbing down to be certain that there's no risk of the least challenge. If he's not always as clever or successful as he might be, he still stands out in a mediocre field.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||06/25/2012|
Does Aaron Sorkin deal in anything besides tired cinematic and screenwriting tropes?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||06/25/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 33||06/25/2012|
Another interesting perspective from the viewer's point is that he is doing a news show about news events that we already know more about than the characters, so we get to watch them get i right or get it wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||06/25/2012|
This is actually a great article on Sorkin as a writer... relentlessly middle-brow, but in a good way:
|by Anonymous||reply 35||06/25/2012|
Mackenzie McHale. Will McAvoy. What's with the Mac/Mcs?
|by Anonymous||reply 36||06/25/2012|
It's like Phoebe Buffay the lady singer who tells the truth to kids
|by Anonymous||reply 37||06/25/2012|
Thought it was terrific.
Oh, and r18? Re your comment "(The Social Network, was not, because it was an adapted screenplay.)" - you do realize Sorkin wrote the screenplay for "The Social Network" without ever having read the book that they bought and which it was "based on," don't you?
|by Anonymous||reply 38||06/25/2012|
My favorite moment in the show was the slow build up as the news about the oil rig explosion started to trickle in and they were trying to determine how significant or insignificant it was. The Killing and Mad Men are gone and Breaking Bad won't be here for a few weeks, I'm interested in news, so I'll watch it, preachy or not.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||06/25/2012|
Does anyone know if the season is more or less real time, and they'll be beating the oil rig to death over the next several episodes, or will they jump forward to something else?
|by Anonymous||reply 40||06/25/2012|
Wing Chun and Miss Alli had a cuntfest over it on Twitter last night. Made me afraid to watch it, but consider the source.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||06/25/2012|
That's a good question, R40... but I wouldn't expect the show to be that "realistic". It'd put too many handcuffs on the writing and direction.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||06/25/2012|
I watched the premiere and agree with R31.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||06/25/2012|
R40, the promos show something about the Bin Laden story too.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||06/25/2012|
I lasted 10 minutes. I'm a big fan of Sorkin but I found it self righteous, contrived and preachy.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||06/25/2012|
It had moments, but the whole show fell apart when everything came into place because the guy walked into the newsroom and 30 minutes later miraculously saved the day by having an ex-roommate who worked at BP and a sister who worked at Haliburton. Not just worked there, were actually in the meetings, were 110% up to speed about the oil well, and were willing to jeopardize their careers by talking to a network news show.
Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.
How will they top that next week? Find a cure for cancer cleaning the mold out of the break room refrigerator?
|by Anonymous||reply 46||06/25/2012|
I enjoyed it more the first time I saw it. You know, back when William Hurt was the anchor and Holly Hunt was the producer and they were talking about the airplane getting shot down.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||06/25/2012|
They really tried to kick Halliburton in the balls but all the people who should watch, they were watching Housewives.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||06/25/2012|
R47, I liked it, but immediately thought about Broadcast News as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||06/25/2012|
But cable is so over priced, most people can't afford premium channels. It's not right, where does all the money go?
|by Anonymous||reply 50||06/25/2012|
After the terrible reviews I was expecting to hate it, and so it at least exceeded my admittedly low expectations. The acting and production values were very good.
I hope in their ongoing portrayal of McAvoy, they make him more of an unpredictable loose cannon and less the second coming of Edward R. Murrow (I fear the latter).
I also think a show about two-year-old news stories could be boring. I thought there was a notable lack of dramatic tension in watching them cover the BP oil spill - we already know how all that turns out. Plus it's sort of weird that they'll apparently on a regular basis have fictional journalists getting credit for the work of real journalists.
As another poster pointed out, the whole aspect with the new producer immediately nailing down two deeply inside sources smacked sort of false. It seemed like he and Dev Patel managed to marshal a ton of information in the first minutes of the spill that in reality probably only came out over weeks and even months.
All that said, I'll probably watch the whole first season just to see where it goes.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||06/25/2012|
Sorkin is a great writer and if you can't admit it...you are more then likely an asshole.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||06/25/2012|
Gawker today referred to The Newsroom as "that heartwarming new HBO show about a rich white man who finally finds the COURAGE to be an opinionated dipshit on TV."
|by Anonymous||reply 53||06/25/2012|
[quote]Sorkin is a great writer and if you can't admit it...you are more then likely an asshole.
Someone who thinks other people's aesthetic opinions that differ from his own make them "more then [since] likely an asshole" is absolutely certainly an asshole of the smelliest kind.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||06/25/2012|
"let's never forget, we're the real story, not them" Aaron Altman
|by Anonymous||reply 55||06/25/2012|
Gawker is exactly the kind of lazy bullshit and bad writing Newsroom is talking about, so of course they're going to take offense. They're incapable of doing anything else.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||06/25/2012|
[quote]Gawker is exactly the kind of lazy bullshit and bad writing Newsroom is talking about
No, not exactly. With the tagline "Today's gossip is tomorrow's news," Gawker clearly doesn't aim too high.
CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, CNBC... those are more aptly the targets.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||06/25/2012|
The truth is the truth, R54. If you can't admit something that is so VERY OBVIOUS, you are an asshole...or I could say you are a very ignorant person, which may be closer to the truth. I would much rather be called an asshole, rather than be called stupid, ignorant or jealous. If you prefer one of the other options, take your pick.
For all I know, Sorkin is an asshole. I suspect that but it still doesn't dismiss the truth. He is a great writer.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||06/25/2012|
Since I already loathe the main character, I don't know how long I'm going to be able to stomach this. But I'll give it a few weeks and see where it goes.
Still, I loved Jed Bartlett. I have a feeling that the West Wing will always be Sorkin's crowning glory.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||06/25/2012|
Enough with the canonization of Aaron Sorkin by some on this board.
The attached clip link is far more entertaining and revealing of Sorkin's talents than any moment of last night's show.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||06/25/2012|
If Sorkin is such a great writer how come every character in every show he's ever written all talk exactly the same?
|by Anonymous||reply 61||06/25/2012|
This was Norma Rae and 9 to 5 all rolled into one, dated show.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||06/25/2012|
I loved it and was prepared not to. I hope it gets the attention of all the crappy news organizations. I'd like to personally throttle them for their lack coverage this year of the political campaigns. These candidates get away with their crap because they can!
Can't wait for next week. Like the sexual tension, love the cast of characters. It's so much better than anything else on this summer.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||06/25/2012|
The predictable fast talking annoyed me. I found Thomas Sadosky's reluctance to accept the seriousness of Deepwater much too melodramatically developed. Emily Mortimer is terrific.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||06/25/2012|
I really liked Emily Mortimer as well. And it's nice to see a female character be one of the two major characters this time around. Not just a bunch of male guys tossing things around.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||06/25/2012|
I think Sorkin writes really entertaining stuff when he's on but I can't believe people take him so seriously - he's like Diablo Cody for David Brooks readers. Definitely one of those people whose work-for-hire hackery I vastly prefer to their passion projects...even The West Wing and Sports Night rubbed me the wrong way when they weren't firing on all cylinders, and it's more entertaining to watch Sorkin's highlights shift around in the behind-the-scenes featurette than it is to sit through the episode itself.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||06/25/2012|
Great find r60.
I knew there was reason every Sorkin show is just like every other Sorkin show.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||06/25/2012|
R60! I just watched that clip. Thanks for posting it!
|by Anonymous||reply 68||06/25/2012|
Watch Episode 1 of Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom for free on the HBO YouTube Channel.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||06/25/2012|
He really knows how to shoot himself in the foot.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||06/25/2012|
Overall I liked it and found it entertaining, but feel Jeff Daniels is seriously miscast as the lead.
The supporting cast is pretty good. I will stick with it and see where it takes me.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||06/25/2012|
Sorkin's only ever written one script.
It was a good one, he did it very well, but still, just only one.
"The Newsroom" = same shit, again, but on different sets.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||06/25/2012|
I get Jeff Daniels confused with Bill Pullman.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||06/25/2012|
He was just interviewed on CBS This Morning. BAD hair dye!
|by Anonymous||reply 74||06/27/2012|
Is it just me, or is Sam Waterston really really bad in this?
|by Anonymous||reply 75||06/27/2012|
Sorkin has always thought of himself as this generation's Paddy Chayefsky (he even dedicated his Oscar win to Chayefsky), but his work could never measure up to The Americanization of Emily, The Hospital and Network, no matter how hard he tries. I just can't take him seriously as a writer. The dialogue in Sorkin's work is too heightened and stylized, too self-aware of its own "cleverness," and the plots are about as predictable and sappy as those in a Cameron Crowe movie. Sure, he has a style to his writing, but it's a style that one grows tired of within the first fifteen minutes. For someone so lionized as a "brilliant" writer, he does everything by the numbers.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||06/27/2012|
It's you, R75. Every other review praises his acting for obvious reasons.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||06/27/2012|
I'm not a Sam Waterston fan and I thought he was quite good in this. He clearly relishes the role. His serious vocal damage is distracting though.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||06/28/2012|
What is wrong with his voice? Drinking? Smoking? It's like Clint Eastwood, I can't listen to him anymore, it hurts.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||06/28/2012|
You're right, R61. I am equally annoyed by how all those characters by that Shakespeare guy talk in the same pentameter. I can't tell Juliet from Shylock because of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||07/01/2012|
R78 I saw a really short interview he did for this show a short while back and his voice sounded fine in that. Maybe he was under the weather for a portion of the filming of the series?
Was not Jane Fonda to be in this series or am I confusing things? Just curious.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||07/01/2012|
I'm with [R47] I liked it but all I could think was Holly Hunter/will Hurt in Broadcast News. I do like the boy candy and hope that at some point there is a musical number... Shirtless. With the boy candy. Maybe they'll fall in love ... Or just have bro sex.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||07/01/2012|
Still loving it.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||07/01/2012|
Loved the illegals rant.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||07/01/2012|
How short is Chris Messina?
|by Anonymous||reply 85||07/01/2012|
[quote]I am equally annoyed by how all those characters by that Shakespeare guy talk in the same pentameter.
You've just shot yourself in the foot by trying to be clever.
Not all he characters in Shakespeare speak in pentameter--that's part of his genius.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||07/01/2012|
This show is ridiculous but Emily Mortimer is thoroughly beguiling in it.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||07/01/2012|
Some seriously awkward parts (cliched, obvious), but for the most part it was pretty awesome again.
In short: when it's good, it's really really good. But when it's bad, it's not good at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||07/01/2012|
Michael Ian Black's twitter is cracking me up right now.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||07/01/2012|
Here's another funny tweet:
On "The Newsroom" Emily Mortimer texted a mass e-mail meant to be private using the new iPhone "Plot Contrivance" app.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||07/02/2012|
It was pretty obvious that there would be an upcoming mass email fail when they did that scene about how to send one.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||07/02/2012|
Last night was a big step down from the first episode. I am beginning to wonder if Daniels and Mortimer are right for their respective roles. I do think the other actors and actresses are fine.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||07/02/2012|
Yeah, the premier was great, but I didn't think this was that bad. The reviews said that the second and third episodes "stumbled". Well, other than the contrivance with teh email, which was really poorly done, I thought the episode was just fine. If this is as low as it goes, I'll enjoy the ride just fine.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||07/02/2012|
So completely contrived and awkward - I watched for ten minutes and found this episode unbearable. The use of real events from several years ago just looses me as well. I won't be watching it after this, I wanted to like it.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||07/02/2012|
Boring and pretentious tripe. Jeff Daniels deserves better.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||07/02/2012|
I guess I'll just have to completely and totally disagree with you both, R94 and R95.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||07/02/2012|
Jane Fonda starts off with the next episode and she will more than likely add something nice to the series. She is to play the lady who owns the cable network the news show airs on and she also owns more networks in addition to that.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||07/02/2012|
Sam began getting voice issues a few years into making Law & Order. He was pitching his voice lower for that role and he thinks between that and shouting in a play he did that he hurt his vocal chords.
He jokes about his voice from time to time but never complains.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||07/02/2012|
The first episode was a lot better. I just don't think there are that many U.S. workplaces, newsrooms or anything else, where people mix their personal and professional lives in such a loud and flagrant manner. The way that Emily Mortimer interacts with her colleagues seems extremely unprofessional. It was also ridiculous the way the blond girl and Jim the producer - after learning that Gov. Brewer had canceled last minute - then had a LONG conversation about the blond girl's old sexual exploit with Brewer's aide. In a real newsroom they would have been scrambling.
At this point, the only thing that might make me watch again is the "next week" clip that showed shirtless Jim.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||07/02/2012|
I wish there was an openly gay character and a gay sub plot going on, but since Sorkin is closeted I suppose he'll avoid it like the plague.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||07/02/2012|
And people bitch and moan about SMASH being unrealistic? Give me a FUCKING BREAK!
|by Anonymous||reply 101||07/03/2012|
Children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore not granted U.S. citizenship. Emily Mortimer's character should not be American.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||07/03/2012|
1st episode, lousy; 2nd episode, lost cause.
This show will never be president.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||07/03/2012|
That blonde girl with the ponytail has a REALLY round face. I think I saw her in Midnight in Paris.
I like the British EP even though it annoys me that these shows always have to throw a Brit in the cast, I guess they think it makes it classy and we're going to be impressed with the accent. Girls is the same way.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||07/03/2012|
so far I'm loving it.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||07/03/2012|
R 102, I understood it to be the other way around. She was the daughter of the US ambassador to Thatcher's England, I thought Jim said.
If I've got it right she's as American as that other British ambassador's kid, JFK.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||07/04/2012|
I can't believe this disaster has been renewed for a second season. I predict it will get cancelled like Luck mid-way next year
|by Anonymous||reply 107||07/04/2012|
It's OK but it's a bit too soapboxy in that precious Aaron Sorkin way and preaching to the choir.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||07/04/2012|
They need to move beyond this whole "is this going to work" meme. Of course it is going to work, or we wouldn't have a show. And that blonde chick would've been history before the newscast for her major fuck-up.
It was a weak episode and I agree that the whole "e-mail snafu" was predictable and unfunny.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||07/07/2012|
Emily Mortimer ruins everything she is in. Thank goodness she had a famous ather who could get her wrok based on his name. And her character is annoying as shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||07/07/2012|
[quote]And her character is annoying as shit.
Well that's not all her fault. From the writing it's obvious that Aaron Sorkin is afflicted with MHB disease. He truly dislikes the vagine.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||07/07/2012|
I love the show, and Emily.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||07/07/2012|
I love the show.
But I'm not a fan of the opening credit sequence or song.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||07/08/2012|
The opening monologue tonight was every bit as good as the opening one in the premiere.
Damn, that was good.
I want every single news anchor and talking head to watch that, over and over, until they get it.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||07/08/2012|
Totally forgot that Jane Fonda was on the show. Love her.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||07/08/2012|
That rant about the Tea Party was fucking brilliant as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||07/08/2012|
There's zero chemistry between Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer, and this whole subplot about her caring who he dates is falling flat.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||07/08/2012|
I can't believe you thought any of that was brilliant, R114.
Christ, if you've seen one Aaron Sorkin creation, you really have seen them all, haven't you?
|by Anonymous||reply 118||07/08/2012|
Agree on that point.
But the relationship between the blond/red-head chick and the embedded EP new guy is really good. I really like both characters, and really like their chemistry.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||07/08/2012|
R118, I can't believe you think it wasn't brilliant.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||07/08/2012|
I do like the characters and they are very well drawn.
Aaron Sorkin needs to start letting someone else write his dialogue though. It's just too, too hamfisted and awkward.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||07/08/2012|
A few awkward moments doesn't mean it's all awkward.
I love most of the dialog.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||07/08/2012|
I thought it was a great episode tonight. Fuck all you haters.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||07/08/2012|
I think John Gallagher Jr., who plays Jim Harper, the new Executive Producer guy... is so fucking cute and adorable. And smart and sexy because of it.
I want to marry him, and he can have my babies.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||07/08/2012|
Good episode, but I just do not like the character of Maggie. She is fucking annoying.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||07/08/2012|
Alot of annoying bits, but I'm actually riveted most of the time.
Jane Fonda kicked ass tonight
|by Anonymous||reply 126||07/08/2012|
Yes she did!
|by Anonymous||reply 127||07/08/2012|
Jane Fonda stole the show. She was fantastic.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||07/08/2012|
"I wish your face would stop moving so I could punch it."
|by Anonymous||reply 129||07/09/2012|
Is Jane Fonda up for an Emmy for this? She was so amazing (watching it again)
|by Anonymous||reply 130||07/09/2012|
Jane Fonda plays a one-note character badly.
To be fair, Fonda only had a few lines...all at the end of the show, Can Sorkin write for female characters? Maggie and MacFarland (Emily Mortimer's character) are weak links as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||07/09/2012|
The show is really pretty compelling. Loving Sam Waterston's portrayal, as well as Fonda's. And John Gallagher Jr. is fucking adorable.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||07/09/2012|
Jane Fonda knew exactly what to do with her character and did a fine job.
She started things off quiet and (old school Hollywood) mannered and then went in for the kill. She 'set' the drama of this particular episode perfectly and was utilized very well.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||07/09/2012|
I'll just have to completely disagree with R131 in every way possible.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||07/09/2012|
[bold]Dan Rather: The Newsroom’s Third Episode Is Something 'Every American Should See and Ponder'[/bold]
He's right, you know. See link:
|by Anonymous||reply 135||07/09/2012|
[quote]They would then understand how a combination of big business and big government, working for their mutual benefit — not the public interest but rather their own interests — affects the news we see and hear.
Sad, disgusting, but true.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||07/09/2012|
The show makes for an interesting watch and the performances are really good. I agree that Jane Fonda's scene was the highlight of the last night's episode. BUT, and it's something that the viewer is asked to accept as improbable and utopian as it is that the plug wouldn't be pulled on McAvoy's show 10 minutes into his first monologue. Such a show wouldn't exist on ANY cable news network even if Howard Dean was the president and the Democrats were riding the highest wave of popularity ever and stacked every branch of the Government. Corporate and military complex interests dictate what gets presented as truth in the media regardless of how the country swings politically at any given moment. So, Fonda's monologue is pretty much the only segment of the last night's episode that has any resonance with reality.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||07/09/2012|
So far, I've watched every episode multiple times. There's a lot of juicy goodness in the writing, much of which goes by too quickly to absorb on first viewing. And there's an equal amount of excellent acting going on in reaction shots and group scenes you may miss the first time around.
I don't know what show the haters are watching, but it's not this one.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||07/09/2012|
I shall continue to watch the show because of the acting, but in my view the critics got it right when they slammed "The Newsroom."
R134 got it right, the show has almost nothing to do with the reality of news on television.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||07/09/2012|
R139, that's idiotic.
Did you think The West Wing had anything to do with the reality of the Presidency?
You understand this is [italic]fiction[/italic], right?
|by Anonymous||reply 140||07/09/2012|
The McAvoy character could be Keith Olbermann or could be Phil (Marlo's Husband)
But it seems more Olbermann
|by Anonymous||reply 141||07/09/2012|
Good. "Olbermann" will be gone soon. Phil Donahue is too nice to be the model for McAvoy.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||07/11/2012|
Can't wait for the new episode!
|by Anonymous||reply 143||07/15/2012|
Hope Davis! Love her.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||07/15/2012|
"Is it wrong that that that turns me on?"
|by Anonymous||reply 145||07/15/2012|
The Bigfoot thing is annoying.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||07/15/2012|
Anyone notice the two-second cameo by Allison Hanigan (aka "Willow" from Buffy, and whats-her-name from How I Met Your Mother)?
Makes you wonder how/why that happened.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||07/15/2012|
Is it weird that I found the whole Gabby Giffords part really moving and affecting?
Maybe it was just the music.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||07/15/2012|
This show FUCKING ROCKS!!
|by Anonymous||reply 149||07/15/2012|
He's definitely playing Olbermann.
There's a lot of nonsense. But I can't stop watching.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||07/15/2012|
"It's a party... ever been to one?"
"I've been to over three!"
|by Anonymous||reply 151||07/16/2012|
I hope for Dan Rather's sake he missed tonight's episode after saying how good the show was in episode 3. Anyone count how many times Bigfoot was mentioned?
|by Anonymous||reply 152||07/16/2012|
R152, even with the annoying bigfoot (gawd I hope that horrible bit pays off in the future somehow), it was still a great episode in many ways.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||07/16/2012|
Was it just me, or was there a flub in one of the lines?
The one that went like "They just think I'm a liberal because I think [italic]high pressure systems[/italic] cause Hurricanes, not gay marriage."
Hurricanes are LOW pressure systems.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||07/16/2012|
[quote]even with the annoying bigfoot (gawd I hope that horrible bit pays off in the future somehow)
I think the payoff has already happened. Remember the line about how "the tabloids used to cover bigfoot and Elvis and now . . ."
|by Anonymous||reply 155||07/16/2012|
If that's it, then I hope they never go there again.
IT's the only thing that has been truly awful in the entire series so far.
|by Anonymous||reply 156||07/16/2012|
This show has gotten much better. Emily Mortimer is brilliant. I only wish Jeff Daniels could be dating women closer to his own age. At least some of them. Dev Patel is generally not really convincing but the rest of the cast is great. But I did think the Bigfoot stuff tonight worked fairly well in the context of the script.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||07/16/2012|
I'll leave the pontificating to you preachers complaining about preaching...I think it is brilliant and will be watching weekly.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||07/16/2012|
[quote]Is it weird that I found the whole Gabby Giffords part really moving and affecting?
The way they played out the entire scene from the moment the news came in and to their confirmation and accurate call and their reactions and realization of what they did and DIDN'T do was really gripping, intense and yes, moving. I hate to be a Mary, but I did feel a little teary during this segment. I know the critics hate it but every week I love this show a little more.
|by Anonymous||reply 159||07/16/2012|
And I thought the Bigfoot thing with Dev Patel was funny because he was SO into getting everyone to listen to his theories regardless of how ridiculous it made him look, he was a total geek/nerd about it and couldn't stop himself.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||07/16/2012|
Right there with you, R159.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||07/16/2012|
Didn't/Doesn't Keith Olbermann date girls much younger than he is?
This episode seemed to mimc KO's personal life more. The tabloid attack on his failures with women and how awful he is with them? The show was more tabloidy but KO's been in the news before about his lack of social skills w/women.
I think, despite Sorkin's denials, it's alot about KO and Countdown. Especially with the Giffords story. As I recall, didn't Olbermann went on air the Saturday she was shot?
Why would Sorkin adamantly deny the show is modeled heavily on KO?
|by Anonymous||reply 162||07/16/2012|
I am looking forward to this episode....I find it to be bright funny tv...such a change.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||07/16/2012|
I like the idea that Fonda is the kind of twisty evil that would conspire to take down the Daniel's character through gossip rags. This show could actually have some character depth as well as glib dialog.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||07/16/2012|
This is the first time most of the folks on TV Without Pity literally hate a TV show, while people here love "The Newsroom." Strange...is this an Aaron Sorkin thing?
|by Anonymous||reply 165||07/16/2012|
There's nothing to hate. Anyone who hates this show has an agenda.
|by Anonymous||reply 166||07/16/2012|
How are the ratings?
|by Anonymous||reply 167||07/17/2012|
I'm actually really enjoying this despite it being The Gospel According to Sorkin.
I bet he thought he was being so meta casting Jane Fonda, considering who her ex is.
Dev Patel, though amusing, is woefully miscast. His lack of acting ability is thrown into sharp contrast here.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||07/18/2012|
I love the slumdog. He is perfect for his character.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||07/18/2012|
I agree R169, I think he's very good in the role, nerdy, charming, funny.
|by Anonymous||reply 170||07/18/2012|
Dev is great, what's the matter with you, r168?
|by Anonymous||reply 171||07/18/2012|
It's doing a little better than VEEP in the ratings, it's not been the success HBO was hoping for; but not as big a bust as Luck was.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||07/18/2012|
Oh dear seems I offended the Dev Patel fanclub. I do like him I just do not think he is as strong as many of the other cast members. OK?
I agree he's charming, funny etc but I personally do not think he is as talented at acting.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||07/18/2012|
I like the show, but I cannot STAND the character of Maggie and the stupid storyline between her and Jim. I have no idea what he sees in her. And is it me, or are her teeth yellow? She is ruining the show for me. Ugh. I seriously can't recall disliking a character this much before.
|by Anonymous||reply 174||07/18/2012|
Maggie is written as if it were a young Mary-Louise Parker playing the character. Just imagine her instead whenever Maggie is onscreen, R174.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||07/19/2012|
The guy who plays Jim reminds me of Jim in The Office.
|by Anonymous||reply 176||07/19/2012|
OP is responsible for at least 20 percent of the posts in this thread.
Anyone who thinks this show has anything to do whatsoever with how the media actually works is an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 177||07/19/2012|
It's an embarrassing show, but not because of its politics. It purports to be set in a network newsroom but really seems to be set in a high school during the 1980s. The women characters are nitwits (and, with the exception of Olivia Munn, who's redeeming herself after her awful Daily Show appearances, unattractive because their "personalities" don't compel us to see them as interesting--so they stay . . . unattractive). The opening credits seem to last for an hour. The characters mug and make comments to themselves at the ends of scenes in a manner last seen in 1960s sitcoms. Aaron Sorkin seems not to have watched good television programs in the last several years. Jane Fonda is cringe-worthy (as usual--has anyone looked at her latest movie?). Aaron Sorkin thinks male-female relationships are cute.
The Newsroom is not embarrassing for one reason: Sam Waterston.
|by Anonymous||reply 178||07/19/2012|
I have to agree with r178. Two of the main female characters are written as weak twits (a news producer who doesn't know how to text and flips out when her ex's dates show up? An assistant who gets panic attacks and keeps bouncing back to her b/f?)Olivia Munn is the only one who appears intelligent -- and why not? We are told her character has two, or is it three, degrees in economics.
Unlike a couple of the previous posters, I did not get teary-eyed at the Giffords episode. Sorkin seemed to congratulating the newsroom for not mis-reporting her death. Otherwise there was nothing unusual or heroic in what they did.
|by Anonymous||reply 179||07/19/2012|
Yes, R165. What I learned from joining various forums, including TWOP, when Studio 60 was on, was that online "Sorkin fans" seem to be united only by their loathing of Sorkin. All they ever did was tear strips off him. It was the oddest thing.
I kept thinking, "That word 'fan' you keep using - I do not think it means what you think it means."
|by Anonymous||reply 180||07/19/2012|
[quote]Anyone who thinks this show has anything to do whatsoever with how the media actually works is an idiot.
Anyone who thinks that anyone thinks that this is a documentary is an idiot.
What a stupid thing to say.
Did anyone think that "The West Wing" was how the White House actually worked?
God, you're an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||07/19/2012|
About the only thing I agree with R178 on is that the opening credits are really lame.
|by Anonymous||reply 182||07/19/2012|
I am glad there is an audience for the show and some people find it interesting. I find that's true with many of the badly reviewed shows on HBO. Once I watched a few episodes of Luck I got into the characters and ended up watching every episode. I was a little sorry that they cancelled it without resolving the story lines for the fans.
I started watching that show with Jason Schwartzman - Bored to Death - about the author who was a detective. None of my friends liked it, but I did. It took a few episodes before I was hooked. Too bad it got cancelled, but the ratings were never good - about the same as Newsroom.
This show I haven't been able to get into, no matter how hard I try.
|by Anonymous||reply 183||07/19/2012|
R181, I think you need to read this thread, starting with R2.
|by Anonymous||reply 185||07/19/2012|
R185, you must be an idiot as well. R2 does not in any way contradict R181, as you seem to think.
|by Anonymous||reply 186||07/19/2012|
Sorkin fires his writing staff...
|by Anonymous||reply 187||07/19/2012|
Dev Patel is having to contend with a character obsessed with Bigfoot. He doesn't have a lot of quality material to work with.
|by Anonymous||reply 188||07/19/2012|
Jeff Daniels was on Chris Matthews on NSNBC today. I didn't know Matthews son was an actor and one of the stars in the show...
|by Anonymous||reply 189||07/19/2012|
Is sorkin just really self-destructive, or what?
|by Anonymous||reply 190||07/19/2012|
That article above says Sorkin is "dating" our dear lezzy Kristin Davis - what a hoot!
|by Anonymous||reply 191||07/19/2012|
I caught that, too, R189. He really should've started off the interview with that little piece of information--you know--full disclosure and all.
|by Anonymous||reply 192||07/19/2012|
It appears that Chris Matthews's son plays "Martin", a character I'm having a hard time placing. Is he one of those bookers?
|by Anonymous||reply 193||07/19/2012|
He should have said something about it - that seemed strange to me as well...
|by Anonymous||reply 194||07/19/2012|
The Bigfoot plot line was way too far to go for a device. They needed a reason to have everyone in the office on a Saturday. Bigfoot was a reach.
|by Anonymous||reply 195||07/19/2012|
Sorkin is a coward and a lying, closeted self-loathing gay man. We should not let him get away with is BS and this new beard. Out the asshole...
|by Anonymous||reply 196||07/20/2012|
The Gabrielle Giffords episode was ridiculous. And I sobbed. The perfect storm of camp television.
|by Anonymous||reply 197||07/20/2012|
Rainn Wilson of The Office said the relationship between Jim and the round-faced blonde girl is pretty much like Jim and Pam's on his show. His tweet seemed to be mocking Sorkin. I still like "Newsroom" anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 198||07/21/2012|
And I just watched the scene R197 referred to for the 8th time. I can't seem to stop myself from watching it again whenever I run into it.
|by Anonymous||reply 199||07/21/2012|
I can't wait for the next ep.
|by Anonymous||reply 200||07/22/2012|
Me either. But again, all the people who should be watching it aren't. And most of the people in the media watching it are dismissing it defensively, rather than taking it to heart.
|by Anonymous||reply 201||07/22/2012|
Anywhere to see this besides on HBO?
|by Anonymous||reply 202||07/22/2012|
None of you guys give a crap that this guy is a lying fraud, a gay man pretending to be straight...
|by Anonymous||reply 203||07/22/2012|
R203, if you want to start that thread, go ahead.
This thread is about the show itself, not its writer or creator's personal life.
And a lot of less-than-likable people have made great art before. Not that this show is great art, but I'm really enjoying it, and think it's saying something really important.
|by Anonymous||reply 204||07/22/2012|
I really like this show. I enjoy it more than True "Jumped The Shark" Blood that comes on before it (I will still watch every single episode of True Blood, though).
I think of Emily Mortimer on 30 Rock as Jack's girlfriend with brittle bones every time I watch it.
|by Anonymous||reply 205||07/22/2012|
Entertainment is more important than anything; I'd love this show if Limbaugh wrote it.
|by Anonymous||reply 206||07/22/2012|
I agree, I'm bored with TV. We need more artistic shows like Newsroom, who cares about the writer and his personal life.
|by Anonymous||reply 207||07/22/2012|
[quote]The dialog is hard-hitting and only a straight man who is into women could write the stuff on human relationships like that.
Puhleeze, I have no idea if he's gay or not, but it's obvious from the show that he absolutely hates women. Or at the very least is certainly afraid of them
|by Anonymous||reply 209||07/22/2012|
[quote]but it's obvious from the show that he absolutely hates women. Or at the very least is certainly afraid of them
That describes most straight men I know.
|by Anonymous||reply 210||07/22/2012|
[quote]it's saying something really important.
And what would that be?
|by Anonymous||reply 211||07/22/2012|
I find myself really attracted, especially by the writing, which is quick and witty in the West Wing tradition. I'm willing to give the series a fair amount of time to develop; it's obvious, for instance, that McAvoy's conflict with the network boss will be a major theme. It's a relationship that must be vital to news shows, but I've rarely seen it explored outside of nonfiction.
As for True Blood, it bores me silly. Sorry.
|by Anonymous||reply 212||07/22/2012|
It was already renewed.
|by Anonymous||reply 213||07/22/2012|
Sorkin is a talented, writer. Who could ever disagree with that?
|by Anonymous||reply 214||07/22/2012|
Talented and, don't you gay guys forget, totally straight.
|by Anonymous||reply 215||07/22/2012|
No comments yet?
|by Anonymous||reply 216||07/22/2012|
Brilliant writing, another triumph for Sorkin.
|by Anonymous||reply 217||07/22/2012|
The bits about Citizens United were really well done.
I also very much loved punching Rush Limbaugh in the face.
|by Anonymous||reply 218||07/23/2012|
Normally isn't it a broadway musical theme?
This week was "Rudy". And well played, I must say.
|by Anonymous||reply 219||07/23/2012|
Sorkin borrowed from Anderson Cooper's actual words when he was in Tahrir Square for the scene with the reporter taking cover in the hotel:
[italic]Opening scene of The Newsroom season one episode five:
Elliot: I canât tell you where we are, uh, frankly for our own safety. Systematically, we have seen journalists attacked. We would like to be showing you, instead of this strange image of me sitting on the floor of an undisclosed location in dim lighting, we would like to be showing you pictures, live pictures of whatâs happening in Tahrir Square right now. We canât do that because our cameras have been taken downâ
Will: Physically, Elliot? When you say your cameras have been taken down?
Elliot: Through, uh, threats and intimidation and through actual physical attacks.
Opening segment of Anderson Cooper 360 from February 3rd 2011:
Anderson: Good evening, everyone. We are coming to you live from Cairo tonight from an undisclosed location. I canât tell you where we are, frankly for our own safety. Thereâs a lot of journalists now who have kind of gone to ground here in Cairo. And thatâs the situation weâre facing. Journalists donât like to become the story, but, unfortunately, they have been made the story here over the last 24 hours. Systematically, we have seen journalists attacked, we have seen cameras taken down. We would like to be showing you instead of this picture, this strange image of us sitting on the floor of an undisclosed location in dim lighting, we would like to be showing you pictures, live pictures, of whatâs happening in Liberation Square right now, but we canât do that because our cameras have systematically been taken down through threats, through intimidation, through actual physical attacks.[/italic]
|by Anonymous||reply 220||07/23/2012|
....and your point?
|by Anonymous||reply 221||07/23/2012|
“Any similarity between characters in the series and actual persons is purely coincidental and unintentional.”
Maybe not PURELY coincidental and unintentional.
|by Anonymous||reply 222||07/23/2012|
At least Mamie Gummer's not in this. Or Grace Gummer.
Waterston is unbearably cutesy but I like the rest of the cast.
Thomas Matthews plays Martin, the really preppy looking guy who's always in the conference room scenes. I noticed him in the pilot because he was cute, he didn't say a word and I wondered why he was getting so much screen time sitting there in the background. I figured he was probably John Gallagher Jr's stand-in because they look so much alike. And then in the first regular episode he actually said something. And he's had lines in almost every episode so far. I never understood why he would be there all the time because he really does look too much like Gallagher but being Chris Matthews' son is my answer. Maybe Sorkin is boning him?
|by Anonymous||reply 223||07/23/2012|
Sorkin is not gay - he's dating Kristin Davis, that sexy star of Sex in the City.
|by Anonymous||reply 224||07/24/2012|
[quote] Sorkin is not gay - he's dating Kristin Davis, that sexy star of Sex in the City.
You're obviously new to DL and haven't read the gossip on Sorkin and Davis.
|by Anonymous||reply 225||07/24/2012|
God, I want to like this show but it's basically a lot of good actors elevating shitty material. Last night I watched the Cairo/Wisconsin episode, which was the worst yet. I'm sorry, I'm as liberal as they come but I just can't stand the preachiness and one-sidedness. I also think it's really phony how he gives his characters credit for basically predicting the future in the stories they're covering: "There's 75 teachers protesting the governor of Wisconsin in Appleton. Tomorrow it will be 30,000." Bullshit, no one knew in the early days of those protests the way that it would snowball. He's using total hindsight to make them seem like these news savants.
The only storyline that's interesting is Will and Charlie's battles with their corporate overlords. The "romantic tension" between Jim and (?) Maggie - the blond girl - is unbelievably strained, and I absolutely HATE how in both romantic triangle story-lines there are constantly outsiders just conveniently showing up at the newsroom and openly discussing their relationships in front of everybody. Like how Maggie's roommate just comes STORMING IN on Valentine's Day to yell at and berate Jim in front of his colleagues - that would never, ever happen in a real professional workplace. It just makes Sorkin seem woefully out of teach with the real world.
I don't think this show is past saving, but it needs a major overhaul.
|by Anonymous||reply 226||07/29/2012|
[quote]I just can't stand the preachiness and one-sidedness
That's always been my problem with Sorkin. He also simplifies things to such an extreme, it gets painful.
|by Anonymous||reply 227||07/29/2012|
I'm sorry, but there aren't always two sides. He's not "one-sided". He's factual, truthful.
|by Anonymous||reply 228||07/29/2012|
That moment with the roommate storming in the newsroom to make a scene was embarrassing. I know it was built up that she had been dealt a raw deal on previous Valentine's Day but what she did would be considered a pretty good example of mental instability.
|by Anonymous||reply 229||07/29/2012|
R228, at R181 you were screaming at anyone who thought the show reflected the truth about the media. I'm confused, which side are you on?
Look, Aaron Sorkin is great at writing through his extremely narrow perspective, as an upper-class, middle-aged white guy.
|by Anonymous||reply 230||07/29/2012|
It's not that complicated, R230. Figure it out.
There's nothing contradictory about my two posts.
|by Anonymous||reply 231||07/29/2012|
Is it just me, or did they jump WAY ahead in the timeline?
Last I remember it was 2010... now it's suddenly AFTER the Japanese earthquake.
|by Anonymous||reply 232||07/29/2012|
Anyone else want to punch the black gay guy for Santorum? Or is that just me?
|by Anonymous||reply 233||07/29/2012|
The black gay guy made a very good point...he is working for Santorum because he agrees with the candidate's position on abortion. I also liked the way he was not afraid to talk back to Jeff Daniels, whose character entered bully territory.
|by Anonymous||reply 234||07/30/2012|
Sloan is the only female character who is believable as smart and qualified (even overqualified) for her job. McKen and Maggie get more and more annoying each week.
|by Anonymous||reply 235||07/30/2012|
R234, I completely disagree.
He got mad at Jeff Daniels but it wasn't JEFF who was defining him, it was Rick Santorum. Jeff Daniel's character was exactly right.
And the black guy was a self-loathing piece of shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 236||07/30/2012|
Another very well-written episode. The Rick Santorum spokesman scene puts the lie to the dumb accusation that Sorkin's "one-sided" in his writing. I defy you to grok the mindset of people who disagree with you well enough to write even half as powerful an exposition of it like he did there.
|by Anonymous||reply 237||07/30/2012|
The black gay guy was based on Robert Traynham who was one of Santorum's aides. I did want to punch HIM in the face when I used to see him on MSNBC, but I got what the Newsroom guy was saying about not needing to be helped or defined by Will McAvoy.
I agree with R237.
|by Anonymous||reply 238||07/30/2012|
r234 and r236 are both right, which is exactly what made the story very compelling. There aren't two sides to every story (this false equivalency myth is making a farce of the media), not at all, but Will was made to feel like a bully. There are good reasons to ask oneself why any black, gay man would support, let alone rep, Santorum. Which made Will's questions all very significant.
But I can understand why a black, gay Santorum supporter who is being badgered by a straight, white reporter would feel ghettoized and mistreated. And Will understood it himself as well, after the fact, which made the scene and episode very strong.
|by Anonymous||reply 239||07/30/2012|
He was an actor...so no, I didn't want to punch him. I still want to punch Rick Santorum.
They did seem to jump ahead.
|by Anonymous||reply 240||07/30/2012|
Newsroom is the Showgirls of premium cable. I watch it because it's so bad it's great!
|by Anonymous||reply 241||07/30/2012|
Somebody posted this before, but it bears repeating: why on earth does everyone conduct their business in the open office screaming at each other? I am sorry, there is no way in hell that happens anywhere. Especially when an employee is being berated and/or disciplined like Sloan was. Humiliating someone like that in public at work would and should lead to a lawsuit.
This show has potential to be a GREAT show. The writing is sharp, the stories real, and most of the characters are likeable--but sometimes they do scenes that leave me shaking my head they are so unrealistic.
|by Anonymous||reply 242||07/30/2012|
Clearly R242 has never worked in a restaurant.
|by Anonymous||reply 243||07/30/2012|
It was good to see David Krumholtz, although the shrink scene was a total rehash of the one in "The West Wing." President/Will can't sleep.
|by Anonymous||reply 244||07/30/2012|
I hope we see more of the shrink. I like the actor and liked the character.
|by Anonymous||reply 245||07/30/2012|
I want Jim to fall in love with me and marry me.
|by Anonymous||reply 246||08/01/2012|
[quote]I hope we see more of the shrink. I like the actor and liked the character.
He's the star of the new CBS show Partners, with Michael Urie.
|by Anonymous||reply 247||08/01/2012|
I like Sorkin and I like the show. But, my god, the man thinks women are idiots. Even the most Rose Nylands of Rose Nylands at age 25ish, in 2011, while working for a major news station would know that LOL is NOT "lots of love". That ruined the whole episode for me, an episode I otherwise liked. I mean, it's one thing, I guess, to have the "best Exec Producer in the business (Will's words)" not know how to email something correctly, but to have anyone, anyone under the age of 75 not know that LOL, easily the most common internet acronym, means LOL is beyond the pale.
Whew. Sorry. Carry on.
|by Anonymous||reply 248||08/01/2012|
But, R248, many women ARE idiots. Men too.
|by Anonymous||reply 249||08/01/2012|
Sorry, R248, but I knew someone who after years thought it meant "Lots of Love".
I laughed at that precisely because it comes from real life.
|by Anonymous||reply 250||08/01/2012|
[quote]He's the star of the new CBS show Partners, with Michael Urie.
I can't stand Michael Urie, or the stereotype-fest that is the new CBS show "Partners".
|by Anonymous||reply 251||08/01/2012|
Except in Sorkin's world, the women are not supposed to be idiots, at least not "officially". Despite that, he has Mackenzie, the best EP in the news business, not knowing a thing about economics and still apologizing for something she did three years ago. Then there's Sloan, a journalist with 2 Ph.D.s, who doesn't know better than to disclose something told to her off the record and needs to ask Will for "wisdom." And Maggie--well, I don't even think Maggie was ever supposed to be competent. She's just ridiculous.
And those are just the main characters. All the peripheral female characters are psycho bitches, too--from the roommate flipping out over Valentine's Day to the woman aroused by the fact that Will took her gun away and pointed it at her. Even the moron during the pilot episode who asked Will to explain why America is the greatest country in the world--suspending for the moment any disbelief that a Medill journalism student would ask that--had to be denigrated as "sorority girl." Apparently, he couldn't bother to have a frat boy who asked that question.
I don't know how it is that the man who created C.J. Cregg and Abbey Bartlet is the same guy who's writing these women, but it's incredibly frustrating to watch.
|by Anonymous||reply 252||08/01/2012|
Agree in general R252, except for Sloan. Will had just told her that she has let too many guests off the hook on her hour show about business. She made a huge mistake, but it's the first I believe.
It's Maggie and Mc that come off as idiots week after week.
|by Anonymous||reply 253||08/01/2012|
I still think it's lazy, lazy writing to have Maggie not know LOL. I don't care if someone you knew in real life did that, R250. No one in Maggie's age group would make that mistake and no one her age group who went to, what I assume, is a great college. And no one in her age group who works for a MSNBC or CNN major news program would. No one. Computer speak IS their language. Hell, I'm 32 and it's MY language. The Georgia slip up? Okay, I'll buy that. But unless he wants to make Maggie a sitcom character, hell to the no, for the LOL gag.
|by Anonymous||reply 254||08/02/2012|
[quote]I'm sorry, but there aren't always two sides.
Oh yes there are.
I mean, seriously.
|by Anonymous||reply 255||08/02/2012|
I so want to like it, never missed a West Wing, but this is so lacking. Here's Sorkin defending his female characters.
|by Anonymous||reply 256||08/02/2012|
No, R255, there aren't always two sides.
Sometimes there's one. Sometimes there's twelve.
The "there's always two equally valid sides and the truth must therefore lie in the middle" thing that the current news media operates under is just maddening.
It's part of the reason why CNN sucks so much.
|by Anonymous||reply 257||08/02/2012|
The character if Maggie has got to go. Nothing about her seems realistic for that level of broadcasting.
|by Anonymous||reply 258||08/05/2012|
Very inconsistent. Tonight was preachy and preposterous. Tired of the "Pam and Jim" (Sam and Diane?) storyline. Leave it for The Office. How is there time for them to have a long chat about breaking up in the middle of a news crisis? And the anchor is all doped up? Not sure I will keep watching.
Last week was great. Loved the exchange between Will and the Santorum rep.
|by Anonymous||reply 259||08/05/2012|
Interesting comment section on Deadline re: changes in the show.
|by Anonymous||reply 260||08/05/2012|
If Treme isn't starting soon, I'm canceling HBO. I'm starting to think that this show is like one of those old CIA experiments in mass psychosis: how much idiocy, incompetence, and insult will people willingly pay for, and be ENTERTAINED by? If the "patriotism" of last night's show wasn't intentionally cynical, then Sorkin is the worst writer on TV. The women characters are now being directed to behave like toddlers in daycare.
Something is really wrong with this program. Is Sorkin getting away with it because he's casting so many kids of famous people?
No one who's ever had a serious or even half-serious relationship with another human being could write the infantile crap he does. I used to think that the show's "relationships" were evidence that he had no clue about male-female matters, but now I think he knows nothing about ANY relationships, aside from a sad, childish worship of male authority.
|by Anonymous||reply 261||08/06/2012|
Thank you, 241, for nailing it. Perfect comparison.
|by Anonymous||reply 262||08/06/2012|
Momentito. Did someone upthread say "grok the mindset?"
How very future shock of you.
|by Anonymous||reply 263||08/06/2012|
Reducing Maggie's air time (and the time others talk about Maggie) to 10 seconds per episode would solve half the problems with the show.
|by Anonymous||reply 264||08/06/2012|
Agreed. Maggie needs to be relegated to about half the amount of screen time Donna got in "West Wing."
|by Anonymous||reply 265||08/06/2012|
R262, learn how to backreference a post. You can't even get something that simple, with a hundred examples staring you in the face, right.
Seriously, you don't like the program? Stop watching it and stop posting.
It's very good and very entertaining, and I have no idea what you're bitching about. Or R261 for that matter.
|by Anonymous||reply 266||08/07/2012|
When the guy put on the NYPD cap and stood up, I almost lost it. Great moment.
And Maggie? I like her because of her interactions with Jim. Well, not because of HER interactions, but because Jim's character is amazing when he's interacting with her. I love him to death. I want to marry him. I want him to have my babies.
|by Anonymous||reply 267||08/07/2012|
I've watched the episode twice and it's an NYFD cap. I lost it there, and I lost it when Don realized the pilot had a United Airlines badge and stripes.
Sometimes Sorkin can do great things with no dialogue at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 268||08/07/2012|
r268, that might not have been Sorkin's idea.
He'd be happy to take credit for it, regardless.
|by Anonymous||reply 269||08/07/2012|
I enjoyed The West Wing and Sports Night, but I have yet to be pulled into The Newsroom, even with some of my favorite actors (Daniels, Gallagher, Sadoski, Waterston). I usually like Alison Pill onstage, but Sorkin has saddled her with such an incredibly annoying character that I can hardly bear her.
And the dialogue feels even more as if it is trying to be clever than I remember even West Wing being. Maybe it's just Sorkin-fatigue on my part. But it's better than Political Animules, where Sigourney Weaver proves once and for all that she deserved to be treated badly at Yale Drama and that Ellen Burstyn, while still one of our finest actresses, should leave the shtick to Elaine Stritch who does it better. The gay son is cute, but his story is straight out of a daytime soap, as is the whole approach top plot and dialogue. And while Ciaran Hands is an excellent actor, he can't compare to Bill Clinton--one could imagine doing whatever Bill asked, however degrading, while Hands just projects an ick factor sexually and it would be a "close your eyes and think of England--or Ireland--or Arkansas" moment).
Thank God for Episodes.
|by Anonymous||reply 270||08/07/2012|
[quote]he can't compare to Bill Clinton--one could imagine doing whatever Bill asked, however degrading
Are you a woman? Serious question.
I never understood Clinton's appeal, even in a nasty sex way; he was just icky skeevy to me.
My mum, and a few other women (all different ages) felt the way you did.
|by Anonymous||reply 271||08/07/2012|
There just seems to be something wrong with Waterston.
|by Anonymous||reply 272||08/07/2012|
He's playing a guy who's in a constant state of inebriation. Sam probably knows what that's like after years of working for Dick Wolf.
|by Anonymous||reply 273||08/07/2012|
Waterston's portrayal is one of the best things about the show.
Interesting that you mention constant inebriation, though. Functional while impaired seems to be an undercurrent of the show so far, mostly with McAvoy. He was under the effects of cold medicine in the initial episode, on-air while sleepless last week, and on-air high this week. Wonder how much Sorkin's own demons unconsciously inform the writing.
|by Anonymous||reply 274||08/07/2012|
R268, I lost it at the scene with the pilot as well. I found the FDNY hat a bit too much.
Also, for once, MacKenzie showed some leadership in the control booth. Loved when she she ordered the screen dark and let the Washington anchor cool her jets. And Will & Jim playing guitar was just a nice bonus.
|by Anonymous||reply 275||08/07/2012|
I rather hated the Bin Laden episode.
You would think such a savvy news team would recognize a straw man and government propaganda and not celebrate the murder of anyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 276||08/07/2012|
I just like this show when they're working on a developing news story, the personal relationship stuff is irritating, but I guess that's what people like to see - I could do without it. The only women I like on this show are Mackenzie (I agree with R275's comment about the control room scene) Sloan, and that black woman with the short afro who gets to say a few lines here and there - Maggie is a pain and the girlfriends of Jim and whoever else are just annoying and boring.
|by Anonymous||reply 277||08/07/2012|
R276, you are truly a moron.
|by Anonymous||reply 278||08/07/2012|
R276, don't you dare question this show. The troll responsible for 60 percent of the posts here will jump down your throat.
Note that he has yet to answer R211.
|by Anonymous||reply 279||08/07/2012|
The Bin Laden episode was the worst show of the season so far...
|by Anonymous||reply 280||08/10/2012|
I loved the Bin Laden episode.
|by Anonymous||reply 281||08/11/2012|
This show gets better when they limit the relationship crap.
|by Anonymous||reply 282||08/14/2012|
[quote]This show gets better when they limit the relationship crap.
Agreed, especially, the "this is the guy I cheated on him with" nonsense.
|by Anonymous||reply 283||08/14/2012|
[quote]Is it just me, or did they jump WAY ahead in the timeline?
Each episode is understood to take place months after the previous one.
Olivia Munn is a weak link in the cast. I know she's popular, but I think they really hired her only because she speaks fluent Japanese.
|by Anonymous||reply 284||08/14/2012|
The problem with all the romance plots is that you're left wondering what any of them see in each other.
Mackenzie has zero sexual chemistry with Will or that old boyfriend. Will is just as bad because you wonder just what he would do if they did get back together--fucking her seems to be about #49 on the to do list.
|by Anonymous||reply 285||08/14/2012|
I didn't realize the show was still on. How is the Sorkin - Kristen Davis fake PR romance going? What a total dishonest creep Sorkin is. Somebody should OUT that coward.
|by Anonymous||reply 286||08/14/2012|
[quote]Olivia Munn is a weak link in the cast. I know she's popular, but I think they really hired her only because she speaks fluent Japanese.
Yeah, gotta disagree with that. She's probably my second favorite character.
I thought it was a good episode. LOVED the deconstruction of Nancy Grace and her stupid show.
|by Anonymous||reply 287||08/15/2012|
I am so tired of seeing--EVERY week--this big argument between two people in front of the entire staff in the newsroom. Puh-leeze.
This show is quickly running out of steam for me.
|by Anonymous||reply 288||08/15/2012|
I am so tired of seeing - EVERY week - the same stupid complaints. Stop watching and let the rest of us who enjoy the show enjoy it without your incessant whining.
|by Anonymous||reply 289||08/15/2012|
I have to side with R289 on this. Seriously.
|by Anonymous||reply 290||08/15/2012|
It's fairly obvious where they're going with the wire-tapping plot line, but I'm still enjoying the heck out of it. Any scene that Sam Waterston is in is great; his interactions with both the higher-ups and the Newsroom folks pretty much make the show, as far as I'm concerned.
I also like the Will interviews, but we don't see enough of them.
|by Anonymous||reply 291||08/15/2012|
Agree about Olivia Munn. She is one of the three or four actors on the show whose character seems at home in a newsroom.
|by Anonymous||reply 292||08/15/2012|
I guess I'm more annoyed with the Jim/Maggie/Don office romance thing than I am with Mackenzie and Will's, I'm glad they didn't go into it on this episode. Maggie didn't even irritate me as much as she usually does, especially when she was dealing with that woman who was trying to expose Anthony Weiner. I also loved the ending and Mackenzie's final line.
|by Anonymous||reply 293||08/16/2012|
I hear Sorkin and Kristin Davis are going to fuck in the season finale - I wonder what characters they will be playing...
|by Anonymous||reply 294||08/16/2012|
R289 and R290, you do know this isn't a fan site, right? You could keep watching the show and just avoid this thread, if you hate being disagreed with that much.
This is DL, not the Sorkin fan club, so it makes sense that there might be a few people pissed that he thinks we're stupid enough to think he's dating Kristin Davis, for example.
|by Anonymous||reply 295||08/16/2012|
Sorkin's blond highlights are so masculine, so sexy and so subtle! Does he do them himself? Maybe, Kristen does it for him...
|by Anonymous||reply 296||08/16/2012|
Wow. No mention at all of the hsow this week? is this a sign it has jumped the shark?
I am sure the Sorkin apologists will come out in full force, but this show has jumped the shark--and it has not even finished the first season.
|by Anonymous||reply 297||08/20/2012|
Laughable that presidential candidates would agree to Will and Mac's very aggressive debate format.
I have not mentioned the loud disagreements in front of the staff until now, but last night's was totally ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 298||08/20/2012|
Probably my least favorite episode of the series so far, but I still liked it.
Next week is the season finale? Already??
|by Anonymous||reply 299||08/21/2012|
I love this show. I am addicted. That means either it will be cancelled or jump the shark next season. (I am looking at you TrueBlood.)
Jane Fonda plays the most wonderful, soulless tyrant ever. She is beyond great. Her scene with Sam at the curb was some of the best TV ever.
|by Anonymous||reply 300||08/22/2012|
[quote]Jane Fonda plays the most wonderful, soulless tyrant ever. She is beyond great. Her scene with Sam at the curb was some of the best TV ever.
Where do you think she learned it?
|by Anonymous||reply 301||08/22/2012|
Te Sam Waterston ager-o-meter - LOVE IT!
|by Anonymous||reply 302||08/22/2012|
I loved that moment when Mack yelled "son of a bitch!" when the power came back on, it was perfect.
I also liked that scene between Mack and Jim when she was telling him to "gather ye roses while ye may", it was nicely done.
|by Anonymous||reply 303||08/25/2012|
Season finale of The Newsroom.
I sure hope there's a second season. There is, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 304||08/26/2012|
Yes. It's been renewed.
I LOVE Sorkin for addressing that voter fraud bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 305||08/26/2012|
Oh I hope they Charlie and Will gives it to Leona and her punk-ass bitch of a son.
|by Anonymous||reply 306||08/26/2012|
I love the Voter Id stuff. I loved the TeaParty slamming.
|by Anonymous||reply 307||08/26/2012|
EPIC take-down of Sex and the City!
|by Anonymous||reply 308||08/26/2012|
I'll bet they cancel the series like they did "Luck", for some technicality or somebody had to leave the show who was irreplaceable - like Daniels. HBO will pull the plug - just watch.
|by Anonymous||reply 309||08/26/2012|
But damn, I wish more Americans would watch this.
I wish everyone in the media woudl watch this.
Not because it's realistic. Not for the stupid relationship crap. But for the reporting actual news and actual fact checking and calling out liars and just maybe shaming them into doing their jobs.
|by Anonymous||reply 310||08/26/2012|
A recipe for Beef Stew
|by Anonymous||reply 311||08/26/2012|
Bravo. Excellent final show of the season. But still can not stand Alison Pill, or her character.
|by Anonymous||reply 312||08/27/2012|
The Newsroom does a better job of doing the news than actual news programs. Aaron Sorkin ought to consider taking over CNN since they're failing - I noticed Mackenzie and that blonde TMI woman were walking near TWC where CNN is broadcast.
I'm glad HBO will be repeating the whole series, because I miss it already, can't wait until season 2.
|by Anonymous||reply 313||08/28/2012|
Call the Tea Party what they really: The American Taliban!
|by Anonymous||reply 314||08/28/2012|
When it is doing the "newsy" stuff--it is very good. When it charters into the territories of these people's relationships (especially the triangle of Don/Jim/Maggie) it flounders BIG TIME. I just do not get why Jim and Don are falling over themselves to get with this woman (r312 is spot on--this woman needs to go). And screaming at a tour bus like that? Puh-leeze. The bus would've pulled away, if she could've been heard over the engines to begin with.
|by Anonymous||reply 315||08/28/2012|
The Tea Party is an organisation that was created by the most wealthy...to scam the public into voting for the most ignorant and corrupt politicians on earth. That's it, pure and simple.
|by Anonymous||reply 316||08/28/2012|
It REALLY doesn't make sense for Don and Jim to flip out over Maggie when Sloan is so much more attractive, smarter and appealing.
|by Anonymous||reply 317||08/28/2012|
Yes, Sloan is much more appealing. I also wonder why Maggie's room mate is considered so much less desirable than Maggie.
|by Anonymous||reply 318||08/28/2012|
Seems that when they first introduced Maggie's friend, she was described as some sort of slut, not someone who'd want a serious relationship.
|by Anonymous||reply 319||08/28/2012|
Is this supposed to take place in NYC?
I didn't know they had SITC tour buses in California.
|by Anonymous||reply 320||08/28/2012|
Yes...it is NYC, R320.
|by Anonymous||reply 321||08/28/2012|
Ok, I'm dense, what's the recipe for beef stew about?
|by Anonymous||reply 322||08/28/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 323||08/28/2012|
Do any of you people actually WATCH the show???
|by Anonymous||reply 324||08/28/2012|
[quote]It REALLY doesn't make sense for Don and Jim to flip out over Maggie when Sloan is so much more attractive, smarter and appealing.
Well... the point is that Don doesn't belong with Maggie, and Maggie doesn't belong with Don. They're so not right for each other.
But Maggie is exactly right for Jim and Jim is exactly right for Maggie.
|by Anonymous||reply 325||08/28/2012|
Well I hope they don't drag out the Don, Maggie and Jim thing for the entire second season.
|by Anonymous||reply 326||08/28/2012|
Other than Olbermann, is there another cable anchor who would take too many pill just because of a magazine story? It worked for the story, but not in real life.
Jim and Maggie? Surely, Jim can do better.
|by Anonymous||reply 327||08/29/2012|
Jim CAN do better. He could be with ME. But since that doesnt' seem to be possible (me being real, him being fictional, and apparently not gay), he'll settle for maggie.
|by Anonymous||reply 328||08/29/2012|
It's so obvious that the majority of posters on this thread regularly watch soap operas. Every tv show Datalounge discusses - whether it's this or Mad Men or Breaking Bad - always has to be treated like a soap opera. What a bunch of fraus you are.
|by Anonymous||reply 330||09/12/2012|
Maggie is just too annoying and seems to out of place.
|by Anonymous||reply 331||06/23/2013|
Found season two premiere disappointing.
|by Anonymous||reply 332||07/14/2013|
It's still the most sanctimonious, self-satisfied show on television.
|by Anonymous||reply 333||07/14/2013|
The show is both infuriating and imminently watchable. I can't stand Maggie however.
|by Anonymous||reply 334||07/14/2013|
I finally starting watching this on my sister's recommendation.
I genuinely go back and forth between almost vomiting and being completely intrigued. It's so over the top. Sorkin on steroids, so sanctimonious, so absurd. It aims at "smart" and often achieves it, but it also fails miserably - often. I don't like any of the characters - at all. It often comes across as a parody, an SNL sketch, of what an "important" show about the news would look lie.
Yet, it really is watchable, and sometimes hits the mark.
Rolling Stone called it the "best horrible show ever". I agree.
|by Anonymous||reply 335||08/16/2013|
This season has been uniformly good, if not great. I don't know what you're talking about, R335.
|by Anonymous||reply 336||08/29/2013|
I've heard that argument last season, R337, but I don't think it's a valid criticism. The men are just as batty at times.
|by Anonymous||reply 338||09/09/2013|
Thomas Sadoski and John Gallagher, Jr.'s characters are batty at times, but neither bought into Operation Genoa unlike the women and the two male leads, Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterston.
Jane Fonda is awful playing a drunk last week. Sad.
|by Anonymous||reply 339||09/09/2013|
Well, they tied up just about every story line and relationship. The end.
|by Anonymous||reply 340||09/15/2013|
Why did you bump/post to this thread, instead of to the already existing, on the front page, Dedicated thread to Season 2??
|by Anonymous||reply 341||09/15/2013|
Only Newsroom thread I see, R341. Run along.
|by Anonymous||reply 342||09/15/2013|
R342, then you're fucking blind. There's been a Season 2 thread for all of season 2. It's the thread everyone discusses the show on every week. It's on the fucking front page.
|by Anonymous||reply 343||09/15/2013|
Link to REAL thread please.
|by Anonymous||reply 344||09/16/2013|
R344, are you retarded?
You can't find "The Newsroom Season 2"?
Okay, dumbass... if you can't see it with your eyes, even though it's a thread that has been at the top of the stack repeatedly over the last 24 hours... just use your fucking browser search:
Go to "settings" and set items per page to 999.
Hit Ctrl-F in your browser and type in "Newsroom". You'll get a few hits. Hit 'next' until you find the thread.
There, was that hard?
Of course, you could also go to Google and type in "Datalounge Newsroom". It's in the top five hits.
|by Anonymous||reply 345||09/16/2013|
R345: post a link.
Thanks ever so much, sweetie.
|by Anonymous||reply 346||09/16/2013|
R346, if you can't find it without a link, then you're too stupid post here, and you should probably throw your computer or laptop out the window.
|by Anonymous||reply 347||09/16/2013|
Just as I thought...there is no link as there is no other thread.
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
|by Anonymous||reply 348||09/16/2013|
I think this is what you're looking for, R348.
|by Anonymous||reply 349||09/16/2013|
R348, are you fucking RETARDED?!? You are utterly incapable of doing anything for yourself, aren't you?
Jesus, here's you're fucking like you complete moron:
|by Anonymous||reply 350||09/16/2013|
LINK that is.
|by Anonymous||reply 351||09/16/2013|
I loved the Mac and Will scenes.
|by Anonymous||reply 352||09/16/2013|
Dev Patel doesn't seem to get any mention, but he's perfect for that role.
|by Anonymous||reply 353||09/25/2013|
I agree R353 and I love when Neal and Mack rib each other a little. They have an interesting work relationship.
|by Anonymous||reply 354||09/27/2013|
I just started. It is an excellent show, despite all of the Sorkinisms.
Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer work really well together.
Thus far, the weak spots seem to be Maggie (the character, more than Alison Pill) and Sam Watterson.
|by Anonymous||reply 355||10/20/2014|
Aaah, the Aaron roller coaster ride is back. So much fun and soooo glad all of the love drama has been back burnered and they're just moving on.
They were all so good.
And next week it's Jane Fonda, bitches!
|by Anonymous||reply 356||11/09/2014|
Does Maggie get better?
|by Anonymous||reply 357||11/09/2014|
Maggie gets better.
|by Anonymous||reply 358||11/09/2014|
Good. She's annoying in the first season.
|by Anonymous||reply 359||11/10/2014|
Oh I thought you meant because of her because of her problems last season. She doesn't do a whole lot this episode so that's better.
|by Anonymous||reply 360||11/10/2014|
Finally got around to watching it on the DVR.
DAMN it's good.
This show is seriously under-rated and under-appreciated. More Americans should be watching this.
|by Anonymous||reply 361||11/10/2014|
My issue with Sorkin and his writing is the same one I have with Mamet: both are so in love with their purported intelligence that all their characters talk snappily over each other, unlike anyone ever in real life. I can put up with that on "Scandal" because it's just enjoyable, over-the -top hot mess but not in something that's supposed to be high drama.
|by Anonymous||reply 362||11/10/2014|
Great start to the season.
|by Anonymous||reply 363||11/11/2014|
This is a show for REALLY OLD people.
|by Anonymous||reply 364||11/11/2014|
No, R364. It's a show for everyone. But especially those with any amount of brains or respect or consideration or caring about the future of this country.
|by Anonymous||reply 365||11/11/2014|
R364 is for REALLY DUMB people.
|by Anonymous||reply 366||11/11/2014|
I love sharp, fast dialogue--the snarkier, the better. And Sorkin is a master at it.
|by Anonymous||reply 367||11/11/2014|
|by Anonymous||reply 368||11/11/2014|
"Can I point something out? You're giving a monologue..."
"Everyone does where I work."
|by Anonymous||reply 369||11/17/2014|
Laugh out loud moments, and a truly gripping end... and no comments?
This show is one of the best on TV. It's seriously under-rated and under-appreciated.
|by Anonymous||reply 370||11/18/2014|
Sunday night's episode is considered one of its very best.
Chris Matthews' extremely untalented son Thomas didn't appear in it so that alone made it a winner.
|by Anonymous||reply 371||11/18/2014|
I'm going to miss this show when it's gone.
Sad we only get three seasons.
|by Anonymous||reply 372||11/18/2014|
|by Anonymous||reply 373||11/24/2014|
Another excellent episode.
|by Anonymous||reply 374||11/24/2014|
Last night's ep was alot of fun. Although NOT ENOUGH CUNTY JANE FONDA!!
The story line about the vindictive HR queen is stupid. It's ABC sitcom wacky and needs to go.
I lurve the cray JB Novak taking over the network.
|by Anonymous||reply 375||11/24/2014|
This week's scene with the EPA guy laying out the doomsday scenario and everyone's total inability to process it or even figure out how to react to it since it was so far outside what they consider "news" was great television.
I just wish they weren't always the smartest people in the room every fucking time. Do a Wolf Blitzer on Jeopardy once in a while and show us you're humans.
|by Anonymous||reply 376||11/24/2014|
Agreed, R376, that was a great scene.
|by Anonymous||reply 377||11/25/2014|
[quote] I just wish they weren't always the smartest people in the room every fucking time. Do a Wolf Blitzer on Jeopardy once in a while and show us you're humans.
You do realize that they channel Sorkin's perception of himself, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 378||11/25/2014|
I liked it better when they called it "Sports Night."
But now we get to see the plot roll out on the new owner buying their division of the corporation.
I miss Issac.
|by Anonymous||reply 379||11/25/2014|
I just watched all three of this season's episodes. I love this show. Please come back and do more, Aaron. This season is better than the first two, and it's over in three weeks. Waaaaaah!
|by Anonymous||reply 380||11/28/2014|
[quote]I liked it better when they called it "Sports Night."
Yes, and some people like black and white TVs with rabbit ears better than flat screens.
|by Anonymous||reply 381||11/30/2014|
What a terrible comparison, R381. Sports Night was terrific. If only it had been on HBO.
|by Anonymous||reply 382||11/30/2014|
Sports Night WAS terrific.
And The Newsroom is better than 95% of the new programing today.
But, come on: MacKinzie = Dana, Maggie = Natalie, Will = Dan (fused w/ Olbermann), Sloan = Sally Sasser, and Charlie is Issac.
I love them all, but if you can't see the comparisons, you just ain't a looking!
Ted McGinley should Guest Star on the final episode!
|by Anonymous||reply 383||11/30/2014|
Sloan is not Sally. Sally was a ruthless woman who used her sexuality to get ahead, and had no journalistic acumen.
Will is a different creature than Dan Rydell.
The boyfriend that Mac had in season 1 is the Ted McGinley character.
|by Anonymous||reply 384||11/30/2014|
R380, I'm pretty sure it's HBO that didn't want any more episodes...
I don't know why the ratings aren't better. Well, maybe I do... most people are too stupid to appreciate the show.
|by Anonymous||reply 385||11/30/2014|
Maybe I should take another look at Newroom based on the rabid enthusiasm of this thread. I tried watching Season 1, but it felt like an awful lot of stunt writing and long, pious monologues. But, it seems better than most of the awful content on TV now, so I will record and watch again. I think I stopped watching when the one main character emailed the whole office about cheating on Jeff Daniels' character. It just seemed stupid. There seemed to be an awful lot of hyperventilated overacting and jittery constructed conflict, like a soap opera brought to you by Red Bull.
|by Anonymous||reply 386||11/30/2014|
[quote]you just ain't a looking!
You're right. I "ain't a looking!" you fucking numbskull. Do you have nothing better to do than pick, pick, pick, pick, pick at everything everyone else but you enjoys? Your kind of human is the most annoying type of human that is actually not lethal. I wish you would leave the internet, you immense, whiny, kvetchy little baby. Really. You're lower than a "But it's Photoshopppped" cunt.
|by Anonymous||reply 387||11/30/2014|
I am R380, not the vicious undershoe piece of dogturd posting as R383.
|by Anonymous||reply 388||11/30/2014|
Loved Gummer getting reamed by hot little Jim.
|by Anonymous||reply 389||11/30/2014|
Good God, Gummer's got dead eyes.
Chris Matthews' son was intolerable again-in every single shot he's in he's mugging for the camera.
|by Anonymous||reply 390||11/30/2014|
R386, the first season was a bit like that, but each season has gotten better and better.
|by Anonymous||reply 391||12/01/2014|
Small detail last night, but confusing--
Minor subplot about the new HR guy continually trying to catch Don and Sloan as a couple "against" company rules.
Once HR guy seemed to have proof, he said it was just a joke and went on his way. WTF?
Was it because of new ownership, or because Olivia Munn and Thomas Sadoski needed a plot line the last few episodes?
|by Anonymous||reply 392||12/01/2014|
TV Critics really seem to DESPISE everything about this show, but I liked it from the first episode and am disappointed that it's not coming back - watching the latest episodes is depressing because I love the characters and storylines and don't want it to end.
|by Anonymous||reply 393||12/01/2014|
I think the HR guy was a head-fuck. Giving underlings a hard time... because he could. We've all run into pricks like this one. It's just that they don't come clean unless you threaten them in some way.
|by Anonymous||reply 394||12/01/2014|
So while everyone is preparing a wedding, trolling Juliard, buying rings and flowers... who is doing the news? No other networks are reporting that Will is going to jail?
|by Anonymous||reply 395||12/01/2014|
I don't care what anyone says, I found the last bit rather moving.
|by Anonymous||reply 396||12/01/2014|
Me, too, R396. Great show.
|by Anonymous||reply 397||12/01/2014|
It was getting better rating than Girls, yet HBO allows that piece of shit to continue. Probably not enough nudity, sex or gratuitous voilence for TPTB at HBO.
|by Anonymous||reply 398||12/01/2014|
I still want to be 15 years younger and have Jim as my boyfriend. He's, like, everything I've ever wanted in a man. Dammit.
|by Anonymous||reply 399||12/01/2014|
I could have written R399. I went out and bought cold cuts today because he made a sandwich last night.
|by Anonymous||reply 400||12/01/2014|
[quote]Good God, Gummer's got dead eyes.
She does. Now I'm afraid to look at her.
|by Anonymous||reply 401||12/02/2014|
I can't wait til next week, exciting show.
|by Anonymous||reply 402||12/02/2014|
It shouldn't surprise anyone that TV critics don't like a show about a news operation that's smarter and more interesting that most newsrooms actually are.
|by Anonymous||reply 403||12/02/2014|
Tonight's the penultimate episode. I've always liked that word. Penultimate.
|by Anonymous||reply 404||12/07/2014|
So have I, R404. How I wish we didn't get to use it tonight.
|by Anonymous||reply 405||12/07/2014|
More importantly, R404, you used it correctly, which most people can't seem to manage.
|by Anonymous||reply 406||12/07/2014|
An unforgivably wretched episode tonight, especially the rape subplot and Will's "cellmate." I'm done with Sorkin for good after next week's finale.
|by Anonymous||reply 407||12/07/2014|
Even the writers are disowning tonight's ep!
|by Anonymous||reply 408||12/07/2014|
I'll miss the show, but last night was difficult to watch. Did Don and Sloan separately go against the new owner in the moment, or was it planned?
|by Anonymous||reply 409||12/08/2014|
What, specifically, did you all hate so much?
|by Anonymous||reply 410||12/08/2014|
I thought Charlie's death was way overplayed. He had been a prick all episode and the n he died, and they play this overwrought mournful ballad when frankly, I didn't care all that much.
I had no issues with cellmate story. Not 'brilliant' but not awful.
I expect the final episode won't pack a great punch. The couplings will be finalized and a few shots at modern news media will be launched but on the whole it will be underwhelming. Sad ending for a great show.
|by Anonymous||reply 411||12/08/2014|
Way, way too much of Will and his cellmate.
The subplot about the rape at Princeton. It was a very important story, but used only to show Thomas Sadoski disgust at his assignment.
|by Anonymous||reply 412||12/08/2014|
I'm hoping next week's episode redeems last night's by explaining Charlie's sudden change of heart. I didn't see the point to last night's "cellmate" storyline. Was it supposed to be Will's closure or was the takeaway a better understanding of Will? I thought it would have been better if he turned in or confirmed the source and used the "cellmate" as his struggle in making the decision and finally his justification of it.
I think it would given the storyline a point, the character depth and serve as whatever else Sorkin tried to convey.
|by Anonymous||reply 413||12/08/2014|
[quote]I'm hoping next week's episode redeems last night's by explaining Charlie's sudden change of heart.
I thought it was just Charlie being Charlie, a pragmatist and a survivor. Just as he figured how to maneuver during the Lansing administration, he adapted after 52 days to life under Pruitt.
[quote]Was it supposed to be Will's closure or was the takeaway a better understanding of Will? I thought it would have been better if he turned in or confirmed the source and used the "cellmate" as his struggle in making the decision and finally his justification of it.
"A better understanding of Will" is what I took to be the purpose of the scene. It's hard to comment further without spoiling, so I won't for now.
I wouldn't have minded if the scene had taken place earlier in the series.
|by Anonymous||reply 414||12/08/2014|
R414, forgive me if I'm vague, I'm trying to spoil here.
I would have agreed with your statement on Charlie, but "mortal enemy" comes to mind.
I agree if that was the sole purpose of the scene that it should have come sooner in the series. I wonder too if it was a clumsy juxtaposition of his relationship with Charlie.
|by Anonymous||reply 415||12/08/2014|
I like your last sentence, R415. I hadn't thought of it in that way, but now that you've said it, it could hardly be more apparent. I'm not even sure I'd call it "clumsy."
BTW, it was when the cellmate started talking about "the Jews" and how Will "wanted to be Jewish" that I figured out what was actually going on.
As far as "mortal enemy" goes, I figure there were times when that's how he thought of, if not called, Reese.
|by Anonymous||reply 416||12/08/2014|
Really hated the reveal on the cellmate -- OTT melodrama without camp or fun.
|by Anonymous||reply 417||12/09/2014|
How would you have written that storyline so that it had "camp" and "fun," R417? And why?
|by Anonymous||reply 418||12/10/2014|
I had a few moments of concern that that horrible Gummer creature was going to make a reappearance. God, she's awful.
|by Anonymous||reply 419||12/11/2014|
Having just watched that penultimate ep I'm actually relieved Sorkin is done with TV. It should have been heartbreaking to see Charlie die like that, but instead I laughed at the cringe-worthy slow-mo when he went down. It was so self-indulgent. Never has a writer fallen victim to believing his own hype in the same way as this bloated cokehead.
|by Anonymous||reply 420||12/11/2014|
R420 can't handle the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 421||12/11/2014|
Finally caught up on the episode... and have absolutely no idea what people like R407 hated so much. It wasn't brilliant TV (okay, that on-camera interview with the website guy was awesome), but it wasn't in any way bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 422||12/14/2014|
How many times is the same woman going to walk past their table at the resturant?
|by Anonymous||reply 423||12/14/2014|
423 - whose funeral is it? I missed last week's episode.
|by Anonymous||reply 424||12/14/2014|
Don't want to spoil it... who is the only person not in church or in a limo.
|by Anonymous||reply 425||12/14/2014|
Same guy talking to Mac in the bowling alley, r424.
|by Anonymous||reply 426||12/14/2014|
I liked Jared Prokop (bass player).
|by Anonymous||reply 427||12/15/2014|
I wish this weren't ending. Now, do I want to keep HBO to watch "Looking"?
|by Anonymous||reply 428||12/15/2014|
The show definitely deserved a longer run.
But that said, it kind of limped to its series finale, imho.
|by Anonymous||reply 429||12/15/2014|
It seems to me this is eerily prescient of what's going on at New Republic.
|by Anonymous||reply 430||12/15/2014|
Underwhelming finale. How lucky for Mac that Leona even though she is no longer the station owner, decides to push for her to be the new President. I'm sure billionaires are always sticking their noses into other billionaires business.
I guess the 'How I got to Memphis' concert counts as an emotional moment to straight men. It left me cold.
I liked Neal's 'You embarrass me' speech.
I will miss the show and the insights it provided.
Now I have to wait until Looking, Shameless and Girls start on January 11th.
|by Anonymous||reply 431||12/15/2014|
I did read the New York Times article about the finale. The writer made the point that it was difficult to distinguish Don Keefer from Jim Harper beyond the obvious difference in looks.
We only met Charlie's family briefly at her funeral.
But, I am very sorry the show is over. It would have been interesting to watch Mac battle with Pruit.
|by Anonymous||reply 432||12/17/2014|
"The writer made the point that it was difficult to distinguish Don Keefer from Jim Harper beyond the obvious difference in looks."
Jim and Don are very different. Jim appeared much younger/innocent in personality than did Don.
|by Anonymous||reply 433||12/17/2014|
Sorkin is known as an overwriter. The show had too many words per scene. You lost the character's believability by giving them so many sentences and words to express reactions that could have been far more effective and elegant if toned down and simplified.
|by Anonymous||reply 434||12/17/2014|
R434, yeah, I never knew what that criticism meant until I started watching his work. Sometimes I think it's a bullshit criticism from people who just are no longer used to characters who are actually literate and know how to speak in declarative sentences or God forbid turn an eloquent phrase every now and then, I've seen the term levelled at Mamet and (when he was doing good stuff) James L. Brooks and for the most part disagreed. But with Sorkin I finally "got" what that meant.
|by Anonymous||reply 435||12/17/2014|