Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

"The Newsroom" on HBO

Anyone watching? The premier is tonight...

Looks like it'll be amazing. The promos have been great.

by Anonymousreply 43512/17/2014

It got quite a few bad reviews from the critics.

by Anonymousreply 106/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 206/24/2012

SO true, #2.

I love Aaron Sorkin's work.

by Anonymousreply 306/24/2012

"We used to make war on poverty instead of the poor."

Damn, that's pretty.

by Anonymousreply 406/24/2012

I'm actually loving it so far.

by Anonymousreply 506/24/2012

Love Alison Pill, btw...

by Anonymousreply 606/24/2012

Is it super preachy like all of Sorkins other work?

by Anonymousreply 706/24/2012

"Speaking Truth to stupid"

I love that.

by Anonymousreply 806/24/2012

"... I have a [italic]BLOG[/italic]?!?"

by Anonymousreply 906/24/2012

"I'm too old to be governed by fear of stupid people."

by Anonymousreply 1006/24/2012

Aaron Sorkin's writing was much better when it was done in a drug-fueled psychosis.

by Anonymousreply 1106/24/2012

Did anyone else notice that the voice of the guy being interviewed by Jeff Daniels was Jesse Eisenberg?

by Anonymousreply 1206/24/2012

Not sure what you're talking about. I thought the writing was great. I love this show so far. Great premier.

by Anonymousreply 1306/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1406/24/2012

"We just decided to."

God, I wish someone at CNN would watch this and take it to heart.


by Anonymousreply 1506/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1606/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1706/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1806/24/2012

That's John Gallagher, Jr. Tony award winner for that musical he did with Lea Michelle.

by Anonymousreply 1906/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2006/24/2012

[quote]the pundit class that's been giving this bad reviews, because it makes them look like such morons


by Anonymousreply 2106/24/2012

"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 Anonymousreply 2206/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2306/24/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 2406/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2506/24/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 2606/24/2012

Oh OK R24, but then the word you are looking for is pretentious.

by Anonymousreply 2706/24/2012

You sure this was HBO? I didn't see a single set of tits all episode.

by Anonymousreply 2806/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2906/24/2012

Given the show takes place two years in the past, I wouldn't expect it to be completely *current*...

by Anonymousreply 3006/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3106/24/2012

Does Aaron Sorkin deal in anything besides tired cinematic and screenwriting tropes?

by Anonymousreply 3206/24/2012

Agreed, r31.

by Anonymousreply 3306/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3406/24/2012

This is actually a great article on Sorkin as a writer... relentlessly middle-brow, but in a good way:

by Anonymousreply 3506/24/2012

Mackenzie McHale. Will McAvoy. What's with the Mac/Mcs?

by Anonymousreply 3606/24/2012

It's like Phoebe Buffay the lady singer who tells the truth to kids

by Anonymousreply 3706/24/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3806/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3906/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4006/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4106/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4206/25/2012

I watched the premiere and agree with R31.

by Anonymousreply 4306/25/2012

R40, the promos show something about the Bin Laden story too.

by Anonymousreply 4406/25/2012

I lasted 10 minutes. I'm a big fan of Sorkin but I found it self righteous, contrived and preachy.

by Anonymousreply 4506/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4606/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4706/25/2012

They really tried to kick Halliburton in the balls but all the people who should watch, they were watching Housewives.

by Anonymousreply 4806/25/2012

R47, I liked it, but immediately thought about Broadcast News as well.

by Anonymousreply 4906/25/2012

But cable is so over priced, most people can't afford premium channels. It's not right, where does all the money go?

by Anonymousreply 5006/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 5106/25/2012

Sorkin is a great writer and if you can't admit are more then likely an asshole.

by Anonymousreply 5206/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 5306/25/2012

[quote]Sorkin is a great writer and if you can't admit 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 Anonymousreply 5406/25/2012

"let's never forget, we're the real story, not them" Aaron Altman

by Anonymousreply 5506/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 5606/25/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 5706/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 5806/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 5906/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 6006/25/2012

If Sorkin is such a great writer how come every character in every show he's ever written all talk exactly the same?

by Anonymousreply 6106/25/2012

This was Norma Rae and 9 to 5 all rolled into one, dated show.

by Anonymousreply 6206/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 6306/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 6406/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 6506/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 6606/25/2012

Great find r60.

I knew there was reason every Sorkin show is just like every other Sorkin show.

by Anonymousreply 6706/25/2012

R60! I just watched that clip. Thanks for posting it!

by Anonymousreply 6806/25/2012

Watch Episode 1 of Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom for free on the HBO YouTube Channel.


by Anonymousreply 6906/25/2012

He really knows how to shoot himself in the foot.

by Anonymousreply 7006/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 7106/25/2012

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 Anonymousreply 7206/25/2012

I get Jeff Daniels confused with Bill Pullman.

by Anonymousreply 7306/25/2012

He was just interviewed on CBS This Morning. BAD hair dye!

by Anonymousreply 7406/27/2012

Is it just me, or is Sam Waterston really really bad in this?

by Anonymousreply 7506/27/2012

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 Anonymousreply 7606/27/2012

It's you, R75. Every other review praises his acting for obvious reasons.

by Anonymousreply 7706/27/2012

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 Anonymousreply 7806/28/2012

What is wrong with his voice? Drinking? Smoking? It's like Clint Eastwood, I can't listen to him anymore, it hurts.

by Anonymousreply 7906/28/2012

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 Anonymousreply 8006/30/2012

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 Anonymousreply 8107/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 8207/01/2012

Still loving it.

by Anonymousreply 8307/01/2012

Loved the illegals rant.

by Anonymousreply 8407/01/2012

How short is Chris Messina?

by Anonymousreply 8507/01/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 8607/01/2012

This show is ridiculous but Emily Mortimer is thoroughly beguiling in it.

by Anonymousreply 8707/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 8807/01/2012

Michael Ian Black's twitter is cracking me up right now.

by Anonymousreply 8907/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 9007/01/2012

It was pretty obvious that there would be an upcoming mass email fail when they did that scene about how to send one.

by Anonymousreply 9107/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 9207/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 9307/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 9407/02/2012

Boring and pretentious tripe. Jeff Daniels deserves better.

by Anonymousreply 9507/02/2012

I guess I'll just have to completely and totally disagree with you both, R94 and R95.

by Anonymousreply 9607/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 9707/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 9807/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 9907/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 10007/02/2012

And people bitch and moan about SMASH being unrealistic? Give me a FUCKING BREAK!

by Anonymousreply 10107/03/2012

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 Anonymousreply 10207/03/2012

1st episode, lousy; 2nd episode, lost cause.

This show will never be president.

by Anonymousreply 10307/03/2012

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 Anonymousreply 10407/03/2012

so far I'm loving it.

by Anonymousreply 10507/03/2012

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 Anonymousreply 10607/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 10707/04/2012

It's OK but it's a bit too soapboxy in that precious Aaron Sorkin way and preaching to the choir.

by Anonymousreply 10807/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 10907/06/2012

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 Anonymousreply 11007/06/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 11107/06/2012

I love the show, and Emily.

by Anonymousreply 11207/07/2012

I love the show.

But I'm not a fan of the opening credit sequence or song.

by Anonymousreply 11307/08/2012

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 Anonymousreply 11407/08/2012

Totally forgot that Jane Fonda was on the show. Love her.

by Anonymousreply 11507/08/2012

That rant about the Tea Party was fucking brilliant as well.

by Anonymousreply 11607/08/2012

There's zero chemistry between Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer, and this whole subplot about her caring who he dates is falling flat.

by Anonymousreply 11707/08/2012

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 Anonymousreply 11807/08/2012

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 Anonymousreply 11907/08/2012

R118, I can't believe you think it wasn't brilliant.

by Anonymousreply 12007/08/2012

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 Anonymousreply 12107/08/2012

A few awkward moments doesn't mean it's all awkward.

I love most of the dialog.

by Anonymousreply 12207/08/2012

I thought it was a great episode tonight. Fuck all you haters.

by Anonymousreply 12307/08/2012

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 Anonymousreply 12407/08/2012

Good episode, but I just do not like the character of Maggie. She is fucking annoying.

by Anonymousreply 12507/08/2012

Alot of annoying bits, but I'm actually riveted most of the time.

Jane Fonda kicked ass tonight

by Anonymousreply 12607/08/2012

Yes she did!

by Anonymousreply 12707/08/2012

Jane Fonda stole the show. She was fantastic.

by Anonymousreply 12807/08/2012

"I wish your face would stop moving so I could punch it."

by Anonymousreply 12907/08/2012

Is Jane Fonda up for an Emmy for this? She was so amazing (watching it again)

by Anonymousreply 13007/08/2012

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 Anonymousreply 13107/09/2012

The show is really pretty compelling. Loving Sam Waterston's portrayal, as well as Fonda's. And John Gallagher Jr. is fucking adorable.

by Anonymousreply 13207/09/2012

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.

Loved it!

by Anonymousreply 13307/09/2012

I'll just have to completely disagree with R131 in every way possible.

by Anonymousreply 13407/09/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 13507/09/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 13607/09/2012

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 Anonymousreply 13707/09/2012

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 Anonymousreply 13807/09/2012

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 Anonymousreply 13907/09/2012

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 Anonymousreply 14007/09/2012

The McAvoy character could be Keith Olbermann or could be Phil (Marlo's Husband)

But it seems more Olbermann

by Anonymousreply 14107/09/2012

Good. "Olbermann" will be gone soon. Phil Donahue is too nice to be the model for McAvoy.

by Anonymousreply 14207/11/2012

Can't wait for the new episode!

by Anonymousreply 14307/15/2012

Hope Davis! Love her.

by Anonymousreply 14407/15/2012

"Is it wrong that that that turns me on?"


by Anonymousreply 14507/15/2012

The Bigfoot thing is annoying.

by Anonymousreply 14607/15/2012

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 Anonymousreply 14707/15/2012

Is it weird that I found the whole Gabby Giffords part really moving and affecting?

Maybe it was just the music.

by Anonymousreply 14807/15/2012


by Anonymousreply 14907/15/2012

He's definitely playing Olbermann.

There's a lot of nonsense. But I can't stop watching.

by Anonymousreply 15007/15/2012

"It's a party... ever been to one?"

"I've been to over three!"

by Anonymousreply 15107/15/2012


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 Anonymousreply 15207/15/2012

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 Anonymousreply 15307/15/2012

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 Anonymousreply 15407/15/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 15507/15/2012

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 Anonymousreply 15607/15/2012

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 Anonymousreply 15707/15/2012

I'll leave the pontificating to you preachers complaining about preaching...I think it is brilliant and will be watching weekly.

by Anonymousreply 15807/15/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 15907/16/2012

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 Anonymousreply 16007/16/2012

Right there with you, R159.

by Anonymousreply 16107/16/2012

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 Anonymousreply 16207/16/2012

I am looking forward to this episode....I find it to be bright funny tv...such a change.

by Anonymousreply 16307/16/2012

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 Anonymousreply 16407/16/2012

This is the first time most of the folks on TV Without Pity literally hate a TV show, while people here love "The Newsroom." this an Aaron Sorkin thing?

by Anonymousreply 16507/16/2012

There's nothing to hate. Anyone who hates this show has an agenda.

by Anonymousreply 16607/16/2012

How are the ratings?

by Anonymousreply 16707/16/2012

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 Anonymousreply 16807/18/2012

I love the slumdog. He is perfect for his character.

by Anonymousreply 16907/18/2012

I agree R169, I think he's very good in the role, nerdy, charming, funny.

by Anonymousreply 17007/18/2012

Dev is great, what's the matter with you, r168?

by Anonymousreply 17107/18/2012

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 Anonymousreply 17207/18/2012

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 Anonymousreply 17307/18/2012

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 Anonymousreply 17407/18/2012

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 Anonymousreply 17507/18/2012

The guy who plays Jim reminds me of Jim in The Office.

by Anonymousreply 17607/18/2012

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 Anonymousreply 17707/18/2012

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 Anonymousreply 17807/18/2012

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 Anonymousreply 17907/19/2012

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 Anonymousreply 18007/19/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 18107/19/2012

About the only thing I agree with R178 on is that the opening credits are really lame.

by Anonymousreply 18207/19/2012

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 Anonymousreply 18307/19/2012

The show would be a lot better if Jim and the Dev Patel character were having torrid homosex at least once per episode.

by Anonymousreply 18407/19/2012

R181, I think you need to read this thread, starting with R2.

by Anonymousreply 18507/19/2012

R185, you must be an idiot as well. R2 does not in any way contradict R181, as you seem to think.

by Anonymousreply 18607/19/2012

Sorkin fires his writing staff...

by Anonymousreply 18707/19/2012

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 Anonymousreply 18807/19/2012

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 Anonymousreply 18907/19/2012

Is sorkin just really self-destructive, or what?

by Anonymousreply 19007/19/2012

That article above says Sorkin is "dating" our dear lezzy Kristin Davis - what a hoot!

by Anonymousreply 19107/19/2012

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 Anonymousreply 19207/19/2012

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 Anonymousreply 19307/19/2012

He should have said something about it - that seemed strange to me as well...

by Anonymousreply 19407/19/2012

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 Anonymousreply 19507/19/2012

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 Anonymousreply 19607/20/2012

The Gabrielle Giffords episode was ridiculous. And I sobbed. The perfect storm of camp television.

by Anonymousreply 19707/20/2012

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 Anonymousreply 19807/21/2012

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 Anonymousreply 19907/21/2012

I can't wait for the next ep.

by Anonymousreply 20007/22/2012

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 Anonymousreply 20107/22/2012

Anywhere to see this besides on HBO?

by Anonymousreply 20207/22/2012

None of you guys give a crap that this guy is a lying fraud, a gay man pretending to be straight...

by Anonymousreply 20307/22/2012

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 Anonymousreply 20407/22/2012

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 Anonymousreply 20507/22/2012

Entertainment is more important than anything; I'd love this show if Limbaugh wrote it.

by Anonymousreply 20607/22/2012

I agree, I'm bored with TV. We need more artistic shows like Newsroom, who cares about the writer and his personal life.

by Anonymousreply 20707/22/2012

Sorkin is straight and he's dating one of the women from Sex in the City. This show could not have been written by a gay man, it's not trivial or bitchy in anyway. The dialog is hard-hitting and only a straight man who is into women could write the stuff on human relationships like that.

by Anonymousreply 20807/22/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 20907/22/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 21007/22/2012

[quote]it's saying something really important.

And what would that be?

by Anonymousreply 21107/22/2012

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 Anonymousreply 21207/22/2012

It was already renewed.

by Anonymousreply 21307/22/2012

Sorkin is a talented, writer. Who could ever disagree with that?

by Anonymousreply 21407/22/2012

Talented and, don't you gay guys forget, totally straight.

by Anonymousreply 21507/22/2012

No comments yet?

by Anonymousreply 21607/22/2012

Brilliant writing, another triumph for Sorkin.

by Anonymousreply 21707/22/2012

The bits about Citizens United were really well done.

I also very much loved punching Rush Limbaugh in the face.

by Anonymousreply 21807/22/2012

Normally isn't it a broadway musical theme?

This week was "Rudy". And well played, I must say.

by Anonymousreply 21907/22/2012

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 can’t 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 what’s happening in Tahrir Square right now. We can’t do that because our cameras have been taken down—

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 can’t tell you where we are, frankly for our own safety. There’s a lot of journalists now who have kind of gone to ground here in Cairo. And that’s the situation we’re facing. Journalists don’t 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 what’s happening in Liberation Square right now, but we can’t do that because our cameras have systematically been taken down through threats, through intimidation, through actual physical attacks.[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 22007/23/2012

....and your point?

by Anonymousreply 22107/23/2012

“Any similarity between characters in the series and actual persons is purely coincidental and unintentional.”

Maybe not PURELY coincidental and unintentional.

by Anonymousreply 22207/23/2012

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 Anonymousreply 22307/23/2012

Sorkin is not gay - he's dating Kristin Davis, that sexy star of Sex in the City.

by Anonymousreply 22407/23/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 22507/23/2012

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 Anonymousreply 22607/29/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 22707/29/2012

I'm sorry, but there aren't always two sides. He's not "one-sided". He's factual, truthful.

by Anonymousreply 22807/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 22907/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 23007/29/2012

It's not that complicated, R230. Figure it out.

There's nothing contradictory about my two posts.

by Anonymousreply 23107/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 23207/29/2012

Anyone else want to punch the black gay guy for Santorum? Or is that just me?

by Anonymousreply 23307/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 23407/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 23507/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 23607/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 23707/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 23807/30/2012

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 Anonymousreply 23907/30/2012

He was an no, I didn't want to punch him. I still want to punch Rick Santorum.

They did seem to jump ahead.

by Anonymousreply 24007/30/2012

Newsroom is the Showgirls of premium cable. I watch it because it's so bad it's great!

by Anonymousreply 24107/30/2012

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 Anonymousreply 24207/30/2012

Clearly R242 has never worked in a restaurant.

by Anonymousreply 24307/30/2012

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 Anonymousreply 24407/30/2012

I hope we see more of the shrink. I like the actor and liked the character.

by Anonymousreply 24507/30/2012

I want Jim to fall in love with me and marry me.

by Anonymousreply 24608/01/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 24708/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 24808/01/2012

But, R248, many women ARE idiots. Men too.

by Anonymousreply 24908/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 25008/01/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 25108/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 25208/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 25308/01/2012

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 Anonymousreply 25408/01/2012

[quote]I'm sorry, but there aren't always two sides.

Oh yes there are.

I mean, seriously.

by Anonymousreply 25508/02/2012

I so want to like it, never missed a West Wing, but this is so lacking. Here's Sorkin defending his female characters.

by Anonymousreply 25608/02/2012

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 Anonymousreply 25708/02/2012

The character if Maggie has got to go. Nothing about her seems realistic for that level of broadcasting.

by Anonymousreply 25808/05/2012

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 Anonymousreply 25908/05/2012

Interesting comment section on Deadline re: changes in the show.

by Anonymousreply 26008/05/2012

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 Anonymousreply 26108/06/2012

Thank you, 241, for nailing it. Perfect comparison.

by Anonymousreply 26208/06/2012

Momentito. Did someone upthread say "grok the mindset?"

How very future shock of you.

by Anonymousreply 26308/06/2012

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 Anonymousreply 26408/06/2012

Agreed. Maggie needs to be relegated to about half the amount of screen time Donna got in "West Wing."

by Anonymousreply 26508/06/2012

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 Anonymousreply 26608/06/2012

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 Anonymousreply 26708/06/2012

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 Anonymousreply 26808/06/2012

r268, that might not have been Sorkin's idea.

He'd be happy to take credit for it, regardless.

see r260

by Anonymousreply 26908/06/2012

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 Anonymousreply 27008/06/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 27108/06/2012

There just seems to be something wrong with Waterston.

by Anonymousreply 27208/07/2012

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 Anonymousreply 27308/07/2012

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 Anonymousreply 27408/07/2012

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 Anonymousreply 27508/07/2012

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 Anonymousreply 27608/07/2012

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 Anonymousreply 27708/07/2012

R276, you are truly a moron.

by Anonymousreply 27808/07/2012

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 Anonymousreply 27908/07/2012

The Bin Laden episode was the worst show of the season so far...

by Anonymousreply 28008/10/2012

I loved the Bin Laden episode.

by Anonymousreply 28108/10/2012

This show gets better when they limit the relationship crap.

by Anonymousreply 28208/14/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 28308/14/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 28408/14/2012

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 Anonymousreply 28508/14/2012

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 Anonymousreply 28608/14/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 28708/14/2012

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 Anonymousreply 28808/14/2012

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 Anonymousreply 28908/14/2012

I have to side with R289 on this. Seriously.

by Anonymousreply 29008/15/2012

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 Anonymousreply 29108/15/2012

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 Anonymousreply 29208/15/2012

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 Anonymousreply 29308/16/2012

I hear Sorkin and Kristin Davis are going to fuck in the season finale - I wonder what characters they will be playing...

by Anonymousreply 29408/16/2012

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 Anonymousreply 29508/16/2012

Sorkin's blond highlights are so masculine, so sexy and so subtle! Does he do them himself? Maybe, Kristen does it for him...

by Anonymousreply 29608/16/2012

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 Anonymousreply 29708/20/2012

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 Anonymousreply 29808/20/2012

Probably my least favorite episode of the series so far, but I still liked it.

Next week is the season finale? Already??

by Anonymousreply 29908/20/2012

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 Anonymousreply 30008/22/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 30108/22/2012

Te Sam Waterston ager-o-meter - LOVE IT!

by Anonymousreply 30208/22/2012

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 Anonymousreply 30308/25/2012

Season finale of The Newsroom.

I sure hope there's a second season. There is, right?

by Anonymousreply 30408/26/2012

Yes. It's been renewed.

I LOVE Sorkin for addressing that voter fraud bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 30508/26/2012

Oh I hope they Charlie and Will gives it to Leona and her punk-ass bitch of a son.

by Anonymousreply 30608/26/2012

I love the Voter Id stuff. I loved the TeaParty slamming.

by Anonymousreply 30708/26/2012

EPIC take-down of Sex and the City!

by Anonymousreply 30808/26/2012

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 Anonymousreply 30908/26/2012

Doubt it.

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 Anonymousreply 31008/26/2012

A recipe for Beef Stew

by Anonymousreply 31108/26/2012

Bravo. Excellent final show of the season. But still can not stand Alison Pill, or her character.

by Anonymousreply 31208/27/2012

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 Anonymousreply 31308/27/2012

Call the Tea Party what they really: The American Taliban!

by Anonymousreply 31408/28/2012

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 Anonymousreply 31508/28/2012

The Tea Party is an organisation that was created by the most scam the public into voting for the most ignorant and corrupt politicians on earth. That's it, pure and simple.

by Anonymousreply 31608/28/2012

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 Anonymousreply 31708/28/2012

Yes, Sloan is much more appealing. I also wonder why Maggie's room mate is considered so much less desirable than Maggie.

by Anonymousreply 31808/28/2012

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 Anonymousreply 31908/28/2012

Is this supposed to take place in NYC?

I didn't know they had SITC tour buses in California.

by Anonymousreply 32008/28/2012 is NYC, R320.

by Anonymousreply 32108/28/2012

Ok, I'm dense, what's the recipe for beef stew about?

by Anonymousreply 32208/28/2012

Thank you.

by Anonymousreply 32308/28/2012

Do any of you people actually WATCH the show???

by Anonymousreply 32408/28/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 32508/28/2012

Well I hope they don't drag out the Don, Maggie and Jim thing for the entire second season.

by Anonymousreply 32608/28/2012

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 Anonymousreply 32708/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 32808/29/2012

I'm over Jim and Maggie. Seriously! They should've resolved that in the first season finale. I could care less whether they get together next season or not.

I really wish Aaron Sorkin had wrote it where Leona hauled off and bitch-slapped the hell out of her punk-ass son.

by Anonymousreply 32908/29/2012

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 Anonymousreply 33009/12/2012

Maggie is just too annoying and seems to out of place.

by Anonymousreply 33106/23/2013

Found season two premiere disappointing.

by Anonymousreply 33207/14/2013

It's still the most sanctimonious, self-satisfied show on television.

by Anonymousreply 33307/14/2013

The show is both infuriating and imminently watchable. I can't stand Maggie however.

by Anonymousreply 33407/14/2013


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 Anonymousreply 33508/16/2013

This season has been uniformly good, if not great. I don't know what you're talking about, R335.

by Anonymousreply 33608/28/2013

The women come off as nitwits. Does anybody buy Olivia Munn as a PhD?

by Anonymousreply 33709/08/2013

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 Anonymousreply 33809/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 33909/09/2013

Well, they tied up just about every story line and relationship. The end.

by Anonymousreply 34009/15/2013

Why did you bump/post to this thread, instead of to the already existing, on the front page, Dedicated thread to Season 2??

by Anonymousreply 34109/15/2013

Only Newsroom thread I see, R341. Run along.

by Anonymousreply 34209/15/2013

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 Anonymousreply 34309/15/2013

Link to REAL thread please.

by Anonymousreply 34409/16/2013

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 Anonymousreply 34509/16/2013

R345: post a link.

Thanks ever so much, sweetie.

by Anonymousreply 34609/16/2013

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 Anonymousreply 34709/16/2013

Just as I thought...there is no link as there is no other thread.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

by Anonymousreply 34809/16/2013

I think this is what you're looking for, R348.

by Anonymousreply 34909/16/2013

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 Anonymousreply 35009/16/2013

LINK that is.

by Anonymousreply 35109/16/2013

I loved the Mac and Will scenes.

by Anonymousreply 35209/16/2013

Dev Patel doesn't seem to get any mention, but he's perfect for that role.

by Anonymousreply 35309/25/2013

I agree R353 and I love when Neal and Mack rib each other a little. They have an interesting work relationship.

by Anonymousreply 35409/27/2013

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 Anonymousreply 35510/20/2014

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 Anonymousreply 35611/09/2014

Does Maggie get better?

by Anonymousreply 35711/09/2014

Maggie gets better.

by Anonymousreply 35811/09/2014

Good. She's annoying in the first season.

by Anonymousreply 35911/09/2014

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 Anonymousreply 36011/10/2014

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 Anonymousreply 36111/10/2014

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 Anonymousreply 36211/10/2014

Great start to the season.

by Anonymousreply 36311/10/2014

This is a show for REALLY OLD people.

by Anonymousreply 36411/11/2014

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 Anonymousreply 36511/11/2014

R364 is for REALLY DUMB people.

by Anonymousreply 36611/11/2014

I love sharp, fast dialogue--the snarkier, the better. And Sorkin is a master at it.

by Anonymousreply 36711/11/2014


by Anonymousreply 36811/11/2014

"Can I point something out? You're giving a monologue..."

"Everyone does where I work."


by Anonymousreply 36911/17/2014

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 Anonymousreply 37011/17/2014

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 Anonymousreply 37111/17/2014

I'm going to miss this show when it's gone.

Sad we only get three seasons.

by Anonymousreply 37211/18/2014


by Anonymousreply 37311/23/2014

Another excellent episode.

by Anonymousreply 37411/24/2014

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 Anonymousreply 37511/24/2014

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 Anonymousreply 37611/24/2014

Agreed, R376, that was a great scene.

by Anonymousreply 37711/24/2014

[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 Anonymousreply 37811/25/2014

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 Anonymousreply 37911/25/2014

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 Anonymousreply 38011/28/2014

[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 Anonymousreply 38111/30/2014

What a terrible comparison, R381. Sports Night was terrific. If only it had been on HBO.

by Anonymousreply 38211/30/2014

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 Anonymousreply 38311/30/2014

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 Anonymousreply 38411/30/2014

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 Anonymousreply 38511/30/2014

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 Anonymousreply 38611/30/2014

[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 Anonymousreply 38711/30/2014

I am R380, not the vicious undershoe piece of dogturd posting as R383.

by Anonymousreply 38811/30/2014

Loved Gummer getting reamed by hot little Jim.

by Anonymousreply 38911/30/2014

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 Anonymousreply 39011/30/2014

R386, the first season was a bit like that, but each season has gotten better and better.

by Anonymousreply 39111/30/2014

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 Anonymousreply 39212/01/2014

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 Anonymousreply 39312/01/2014

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 Anonymousreply 39412/01/2014

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 Anonymousreply 39512/01/2014

I don't care what anyone says, I found the last bit rather moving.

by Anonymousreply 39612/01/2014

Me, too, R396. Great show.

by Anonymousreply 39712/01/2014

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 Anonymousreply 39812/01/2014

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 Anonymousreply 39912/01/2014

I could have written R399. I went out and bought cold cuts today because he made a sandwich last night.

by Anonymousreply 40012/01/2014

[quote]Good God, Gummer's got dead eyes.

She does. Now I'm afraid to look at her.

by Anonymousreply 40112/02/2014

I can't wait til next week, exciting show.

by Anonymousreply 40212/02/2014

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 Anonymousreply 40312/02/2014

Tonight's the penultimate episode. I've always liked that word. Penultimate.

by Anonymousreply 40412/07/2014

So have I, R404. How I wish we didn't get to use it tonight.

by Anonymousreply 40512/07/2014

More importantly, R404, you used it correctly, which most people can't seem to manage.

by Anonymousreply 40612/07/2014

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 Anonymousreply 40712/07/2014

Even the writers are disowning tonight's ep!

by Anonymousreply 40812/07/2014

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 Anonymousreply 40912/08/2014

What, specifically, did you all hate so much?

by Anonymousreply 41012/08/2014

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 Anonymousreply 41112/08/2014

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 Anonymousreply 41212/08/2014

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 Anonymousreply 41312/08/2014

[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 Anonymousreply 41412/08/2014

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 Anonymousreply 41512/08/2014

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 Anonymousreply 41612/08/2014

Really hated the reveal on the cellmate -- OTT melodrama without camp or fun.

by Anonymousreply 41712/09/2014

How would you have written that storyline so that it had "camp" and "fun," R417? And why?

by Anonymousreply 41812/09/2014

I had a few moments of concern that that horrible Gummer creature was going to make a reappearance. God, she's awful.

by Anonymousreply 41912/11/2014

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 Anonymousreply 42012/11/2014

R420 can't handle the truth.

by Anonymousreply 42112/11/2014

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 Anonymousreply 42212/14/2014

How many times is the same woman going to walk past their table at the resturant?

by Anonymousreply 42312/14/2014

423 - whose funeral is it? I missed last week's episode.

by Anonymousreply 42412/14/2014

Don't want to spoil it... who is the only person not in church or in a limo.

by Anonymousreply 42512/14/2014

Same guy talking to Mac in the bowling alley, r424.

by Anonymousreply 42612/14/2014

I liked Jared Prokop (bass player).

by Anonymousreply 42712/14/2014

I wish this weren't ending. Now, do I want to keep HBO to watch "Looking"?

by Anonymousreply 42812/14/2014

The show definitely deserved a longer run.

But that said, it kind of limped to its series finale, imho.

by Anonymousreply 42912/14/2014

It seems to me this is eerily prescient of what's going on at New Republic.

by Anonymousreply 43012/15/2014

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 Anonymousreply 43112/15/2014

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 Anonymousreply 43212/17/2014

"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 Anonymousreply 43312/17/2014

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 Anonymousreply 43412/17/2014

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 Anonymousreply 43512/17/2014
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!