The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

PhiloCypher

Basq wrote: »

It's natural to as you say to "gauge" an effort against previous work..

.. but I do think it's unfair to criticise based solely on strengths and characteristics of previous work.

In my previous example - Alan Ball created 'Six Feet Under' which had some very strong characters in David and to a lesser extent, Nate. Then compare it to Alan Ball's follow up - 'True Blood' - whose characters were about as deep as a paddling pool.

Did this hinder my enjoyment of 'True Blood'? Not particularly.. what it lacked in strong characters, it made up for elsewhere. Could say a similar thing for Ball's latest show (though he's solely an producer AFAIK) 'Banshee'.

And as I've said people aren't just finding it wanting in comparison to west wing . The handling of the female characters in this show(its fiirst season anyways) was awful compared to most shows not just the west wing , it just so happens that is the closest point of reference for many which is why it gets brought up.

If west wing never existed people would still be criticising the portrayal of the female characters in this show.

I'd imagine if you went through this thread you would struggle to find a single post from a critical poster whose entire argument hung on the show not being as good as the west wing.

Kirby

Zander Strong Ginseng wrote: »

Just watched the latest episode. Don't know what to make of it. Presume that's the ending of this season. Don't think it's as good as certain episodes in season 1..

syklops wrote: »

I dont know what to make of this post. You just watched the latest episode and you presume its the ending of the season?

The first episode of season 2 aired last night. Which episode did you watch?

I think you may have be confused skylops. Zander Strong Ginseng is referring to the lawyer scenes with Will and MacKenzie where she is grilling them about some story they did that had national security implications. You can see Maggie burst in with her pink, short hair and Will mentions she went through an ordeal of some sort.

The rest of the episode clearly takes place way before this. Zander Strong Ginseng is logically saying that he thinks that those lawyer scenes are at the end of the season, and we will be shown what happens that led them to this point. Flashbacks as it were.

Frankly, it's a fairly common sense deduction.

meoklmrk91

An alright opener, I much prefer the new credits, it could have been better but it also could have been a lot worse. I have to agree with the others in saying that McKenzie is a super annoying character, pity because Emily Mortimer is a very decent actress and she could do so much more.

Kirby

I'm alone. I'm on an island.

I prefer the old credits. The new ones are hideous. The old ones were cheesy and camp and up their own arse....but the tune was good. The new one sounds like the tourettes version.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

I think you may have be confused skylops. Zander Strong Ginseng is referring to the lawyer scenes with Will and MacKenzie where she is grilling them about some story they did that had national security implications. You can see Maggie burst in with her pink, short hair and Will mentions she went through an ordeal of some sort.

The rest of the episode clearly takes place way before this. Zander Strong Ginseng is logically saying that he thinks that those lawyer scenes are at the end of the season, and we will be shown what happens that led them to this point. Flashbacks as it were.

Frankly, it's a fairly common sense deduction.

Exactly thanks!

syklops

syklops wrote: »

I dont know what to make of this post. You just watched the latest episode and you presume its the ending of the season?

The first episode of season 2 aired last night. Which episode did you watch?

I watched episode 1 season 2. I meant in that the whole episode was a flash forward and that season 2 will end how the first episode started. Have you seen it yet?

syklops

Zander Strong Ginseng wrote: »

I watched episode 1 season 2. I meant in that the whole episode was a flash forward and that season 2 will end how the first episode started. Have you seen it yet?

OK now I get you. I was totally confused by your post.

Tbh I don't think that is the last episode of the season, as presumably there will be some sort of a trial, but it is obvious there is a lot of things to come.

I'm guessing that Maggie goes to Uganda to get away from Don? Maybe because he has started seeing Sloan? No idea what happens to her there though. Loved the line about her looking like the girl with the dragon tattoo.

kirby wrote:

Frankly, it's a fairly common sense deduction.

The deduction is flawless. It was the language which confused me.

squonk

Not a bad opener. I was expecting far worse. I think some work has been done to dial down the smugness, the overly fast, rambling monologues and the general romantic stupidity that was exhibited in season 1. Having said that it's early days and the last time I praised this show for starting to make an effort to do things right, (1.08 & 1.09), it came back to bite me in the ass with 1.10.

That being said, Sloan was always the shining light in Season 1 as a well rounded, competent and interesting character. Now they're dumbing her down. I think he pretty much telegraphed in this episode that she's going to get involved with the new producer guy. I will wait and see how all that is handled but hopefully it'll be done well. She's a great character and I'll be disappointed if she descends into the same stupid melodramatic rut that Maggie & McKenzie did last season.

Largely having Maggie out of the way this episode was a very good thing. The episode benefited because she adds nothing to the show and, I can say for myself, I don't care about her melodramatic relationships. I was glad to see things ending there and even more glad to see she's soon to go traveling!

I much prefer the new credits. They're far less pretentious than those from last season. I hope things move on well from this opener but, I'm not holding my breath so I won't be too disappointed if I'm back here again next week bemoaning how things haven't really changed. We live in hope however!

FouxDaFaFa

syklops wrote: »

I'm guessing that Maggie goes to Uganda to get away from Don? Maybe because he has started seeing Sloan? No idea what happens to her there though.

I'm guessing Sorkin will try to make a Lara Logan out of her, without actually referencing Logan because of the flak he got for, some thought, exploiting what happened to Gabby Giffords.

JP Liz V1

The Newsroom's second season will air in the UK in August, on Sky On Demand from 20th of August 2013 and on Sky Atlantic from the 26th of August 2013 at 10pm

Footoo

LOL

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-hoping-the-newsroom-ends-before-trayvon-mar,33135/

syklops

Footoo wrote: »

LOL

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-hoping-the-newsroom-ends-before-trayvon-mar,33135/

That would be funnier if it wasn't the Onion.

squonk

There's more than an air of truth about that article!

Watching the first episode and by Christ but those opening titles seriously need to be replaced. The Blackberry product placement was cringeworthy and is exactly the kind of thing that Sorkin would ridicule Fox News or CNN for showing.

I'm sure that certain posters will jump down my throat saying "why watch it if you're not ready to get in your knees and blow the greatness that is Sorkin." I watch it because I spent years in college studying Film and TV and its a medium I hope someday to work in and as such it's important that I watch shows such as this. There is also a part of me that hopes that it will someday deliver on the promise that it has but till Sorkin can dial back the smug and offer something a little more than the obvious then the show will never improve. The entire thing reminds me of Captain Hindsight from South Park, it's incredibly easy to come along after the fact and preach about how you would have done it and offer absolutely no insight insight into it.

There is a great show in the Newsroom but Sorkin isn't the man to bring it out. He's more concerned with coming across as intelligent and full of insight than he is in crafting a show that entertains. Anyone who wants to see an intelligent, well rounded and insightful look into a newsroom should check out Season 5 of The Wire. David Simon managed to create an intelligent, fully formed show that looked at how the news is reported without ever being smug or talking down to the viewer. Simon recognises that the audience isn't dumb or filled with yes men who want a show that they can sit back and nod theirhead while thinking "hey I think that too."

syklops

I quite like the new start. It feels more like its about a modern news agency. The old one sounded like it was the theme for From the Earth to the Moon, or some sort of historical, noble, proud program. The new theme has been sped up, and its got a more exciting beat. I'll probably still keep skipping it though.

The blackberry. Meh. I've seen much worse product placement. Since when did James Bond drink Heineken? In a real news agency, they would all have blackberrys, and a lot of their news and tips would come in via their phone, its not unreasonable to show such a phone delivering a piece of news. You wouldn't notice if blackberrys weren't a distinctive shape.

To be honest, I'd be more upset if it was an iPhone.

syklops

syklops wrote: »

I quite like the new start. It feels more like its about a modern news agency. The old one sounded like it was the theme for From the Earth to the Moon, or some sort of historical, noble, proud program. The new theme has been sped up, and its got a more exciting beat. I'll probably still keep skipping it though.

The blackberry. Meh. I've seen much worse product placement. Since when did James Bond drink Heineken? In a real news agency, they would all have blackberrys, and a lot of their news and tips would come in via their phone, its not unreasonable to show such a phone delivering a piece of news. You wouldn't notice if blackberrys weren't a distinctive shape.

To be honest, I'd be more upset if it was an iPhone.

The problem isn't that it's a Blackberry but rather the way the camera lingers in it. I have no problem with product placement, I recognise the necessity for it in order to produce a major film or show but there's a way for a show to us it without forcing it.

The new theme is better but the older theme suited the tone of the show. It was the perfect bombast for a show that thinks its better than any news network or show on atm.

FouxDaFaFa

The old theme was a pale regurgitation of the West Wing theme and in conjunction with the music seemed like it was designed to make you feel like you were changing the fate of the world by watching The Newsroom (only for the opening scene to be a prat fall or something).

The shot of the blackberry in the newer one is slightly annoying but at least they're watchable now.

syklops

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem isn't that it's a Blackberry but rather the way the camera lingers in it.

It lingers for less than a second. The New York Times was in shot for a longer period of time.

syklops

syklops wrote: »

It lingers for less than a second. The New York Times was in shot for a longer period of time.

It's more than a second and it's obvious the show was framed so as to highlight the fact that it was a blackberry.

syklops

Deleted User wrote: »

It's more than a second and it's obvious the show was framed so as to highlight the fact that it was a blackberry.

You're right its about 1.5 seconds. I count the phone being in shot for 31 frames, and according to the codec information it plays at 24 frames per second.

The Black Oil

Can't say I noticed the Blackberry thing at all.

ben.schlomo

Didnt even notice the blackberry thing, clearly people looking to pick holes in it with this kinda thing. Overall though it was a decent opener, delighted the Don/Maggie thing was nipped in the bud straight away.

syklops

syklops wrote: »

You're right its about 1.5 seconds. I count the phone being in shot for 31 frames, and according to the codec information it plays at 24 frames per second.

1.5 seconds is quite a long time in a film or TV image.

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Didnt even notice the blackberry thing, clearly people looking to pick holes in it with this kinda thing. Overall though it was a decent opener, delighted the Don/Maggie thing was nipped in the bud straight away.

It's a small think and it may be seen and picking holes for the sake of it but there is no reason that a product should be highlighted in the opening credits to a TV show. It's unnecessary and just seems cheap/

PhiloCypher

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem isn't that it's a Blackberry but rather the way the camera lingers in it. I have no problem with product placement, I recognise the necessity for it in order to produce a major film or show but there's a way for a show to us it without forcing it.

The new theme is better but the older theme suited the tone of the show. It was the perfect bombast for a show that thinks its better than any news network or show on atm.

While the preponderance of product placement in the shows and films i watch is starting to grate , I'm not overly bent out of shape over a blackberry appearing as it fits in with the 'how we consume media in the modern age' theme they were going for in that credit sequence, its hardly ,as someone already noted, as glaring as Bond drinking a heineken for the first time ever in a Bond film for instance.

tommy2bad

Or the monitors with windows logo in the mentalist.

ixoy

Second season opening and it's still one of the most unprofessional workplaces I've seen on TV. Everybody cutting across their producer to keep asking about Jim was the perfect example.

Aside from that, there's still the sense of smug there, almost a refusal to admit they're wrong - even Will's Taliban comment is still being treated as essentially correct and that the only reason they're doing something about it is to appease viewers and their bosses rather than the comment itself being grossly crass.

The schizophrenic nature of the show is evident though because in between the eye-rolling personal life, there's some interesting pieces that they touch upon that I like.

As an aside, I imagine Sorkin is wetting himself with excitement when he gets to cover Snowden in a feature season. That story is the sort of one he loves.

Kirby

ixoy wrote: »

Second season opening and it's still one of the most unprofessional workplaces I've seen on TV. Everybody cutting across their producer to keep asking about Jim was the perfect example.

To be fair, while that's not the norm for most people.....it is for some. I worked once in a very informal office before where people where shouting jokes and banter across the office floor at each other.....including to direct superiors. Some workplaces are just very laid back. They do exist.

I don't think this is a stick with which to beat the show.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

To be fair, while that's not the norm for most people.....it is for some. I worked once in a very informal office before where people where shouting jokes and banter across the office floor at each other.....including to direct superiors. Some workplaces are just very laid back. They do exist.

I don't think this is a stick with which to beat the show.

A newsroom is no place for such juvenile antics. We are supposed to believe that these people Maggie, the twit she fancied, Bigfoot boy, etc are amongst the best at what they do yet they act like a bunch of six year old kids. Joking amongst colleagues is fine but airing your private life drama in the middle of your work day is in no way acceptable and anyone who does so is obviously not mature enough to work in any professional environment.

leggo

Deleted User wrote: »

A newsroom is no place for such juvenile antics. We are supposed to believe that these people Maggie, the twit she fancied, Bigfoot boy, etc are amongst the best at what they do yet they act like a bunch of six year old kids. Joking amongst colleagues is fine but airing your private life drama in the middle of your work day is in no way acceptable and anyone who does so is obviously not mature enough to work in any professional environment.

:pac:

It might never win the 'Professional Workplace of the Year' award, but it probably wouldn't be much of a show if it did. Most TV shows wouldn't work if you apply real world standards to them.

This is an Aaron Sorkin utopian vision (and borderline liberal-minded porn), so the characters are hyper-smart and thus capable of delivering news of a higher standard and integrity than any of their peers while still having time for banter and personal issues.

You can criticise The Newsroom for a LOT, but giving them an appraisal based on professional conduct in the workplace is reaching a bit. Without blurring those lines, you can't examine the people behind the stories and thus don't have characters, so you don't really have a TV show at all (either that or they'd have to go the route of Nip/Tuck, once it went off the rails, and the plastic surgery backdrop to the show became more of an inconvenience than anything else). It's one of the first concessions that any writer of a show like this would have to make.

ixoy

leggo wrote: »

You can criticise The Newsroom for a LOT, but giving them an appraisal based on professional conduct in the workplace is reaching a bit. Without blurring those lines, you can't examine the people behind the stories and thus don't have characters, so you don't really have a TV show at all

I understand your notion but the method in which he does it is what grates - people shouting in meetings, running into office yelling, interrupting each other. Lots of shows are set in work places (a million cop procedurals for one) and I never see the sort of childish antics we see here. I don't recall "The West Wing" going like this. The balance between delivering the news and showing us the characters lives is what's off for some of us here - it can be done better.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

:pac:

It might never win the 'Professional Workplace of the Year' award, but it probably wouldn't be much of a show if it did. Most TV shows wouldn't work if you apply real world standards to them.

This is an Aaron Sorkin utopian vision (and borderline liberal-minded porn), so the characters are hyper-smart and thus capable of delivering news of a higher standard and integrity than any of their peers while still having time for banter and personal issues.

You can criticise The Newsroom for a LOT, but giving them an appraisal based on professional conduct in the workplace is reaching a bit. Without blurring those lines, you can't examine the people behind the stories and thus don't have characters, so you don't really have a TV show at all (either that or they'd have to go the route of Nip/Tuck, once it went off the rails, and the plastic surgery backdrop to the show became more of an inconvenience than anything else). It's one of the first concessions that any writer of a show like this would have to make.

I don't agree, you can easily craft an intelligent show with realistic likeable characters without having to make them caricatures. There isn't as single believable character in The Newsroom and the manner in which they conduct themselves publicly simply does not ring true with the type of people that Sorkin wants us to believe they are.

Compare the newsroom here with the one in the Wire and they are worlds apart. One is a professional, adult world where adults interact in a realistic yet playful manner. There is never a sense that these people would be more at home in a college fraternity than in the real world. The Newsroom on the other hand feels unprofessional, the characters simply don't ring true and there's no depth to any of them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, The Newsroom is a show that really has no idea what it wants to be. On one hand it tries to be a 22 minute light comedy about the relationships between these wacky characters and on the other it wants to be an adult, cutting edge drama that showcases just how smart Aaron Sorkin is. Until Sorkin decides what sort of show he wants to make or is able to bring the two elements together in a successful and entertaining manner the show is never going to come close to matching the quality of shows such as The Wire, Sopranos, Treme, etc. As it stands now the show is pretty much the live action version of Captain hindsight from South Park.

leggo

I'd agree with your final point, like I said there is a LOT you can criticise The Newsroom for, but lack of professionalism doesn't really fly with me (and why would you when there are a million valid criticisms of it?)

You bring up The Wire as a bastion of realism...but, then again, I don't know of many systems where cops solve murders by saying the word "****" 38 times, allow drugs to be sold completely legally in certain sections of cities and tamper with corpses to prove a point. I love The Wire, this isn't me mocking the realism of the show, but it uses artistic licence as much as anyone else.

Sorkin's characters in The Newsroom aren't the strongest, the way he handles female characters infuriates me at times, but that's not down to the fact that they don't obey professional conduct within a newsroom. For me, it's far more pressing to say that the characters are weak because they're juvenile within their personal lives yet absolutely flawless once they click into 'news reporting mode' (although I know people, myself, who are like this...*I* can be like this myself at times!).

The fact that both elements take place within the same environment doesn't really alter that fact. It's just a tiny, tiny asterisk within a bigger problem. And it kinda needs to be that way for the reasons listed in my first post, that you haven't addressed (i.e. that there wouldn't be characters or they'd need to make a second show run parallel to handle any personal issues the characters are having...taking away from The, y'know, Newsroom part...)

leggo

leggo wrote: »

I'd agree with your final point, like I said there is a LOT you can criticise The Newsroom for, but lack of professionalism doesn't really fly with me (and why would you when there are a million valid criticisms of it?)

Why doesn't it? Sorkin is attempting to portray the newsroom in his show as an idealistic and believable one and as such the characters should interact in a manner that's believable. If he wants to explore their personal lives then he can easily do so in a far more realistic manner. A number of shows portray troubled relationships between coworkers without having to have them shout out their issues in the middle of a busy workplace.

leggo wrote: »

You bring up The Wire as a bastion of realism...but, then again, I don't know of many systems where cops solve murders by saying the word "****" 38 times, allow drugs to be sold completely legally in certain sections of cities and tamper with corpses to prove a point. I love The Wire, this isn't me mocking the realism of the show, but it uses artistic licence as much as anyone else.

The scene in question from the Wire where fuck is said a lot, is based on actual crime scene work that Simon witnessed. The crime was not solved through the use of the word but rather what the cops observed. The Wire isn't CSI and as such characters don't need to voice every observation and that scene perfectly illustrates how a single word repeated can have more impact than a dozen liens of snappy dialogue. As for the selling of drugs, well that may not be realistic but it could very well happen and is something that a number of cities where drug use is rampant have attempted. They move all the illicit activity to an area that they can police. Granted it may not be as clear cut as what occurred in the Wire but it's not too far fetched either. And Mc Nulty's tampering with a body is perfectly believable, cops do it all the time though the motivation here may be somewhat less beliveable.

leggo wrote: »

Sorkin's characters in The Newsroom aren't the strongest, the way he handles female characters infuriates me at times, but that's not down to the fact that they don't obey professional conduct within a newsroom. For me, it's far more pressing to say that the characters are weak because they're juvenile within their personal lives yet absolutely flawless once they click into 'news reporting mode' (although I know people, myself, who are like this...*I* can be like this myself at times!).

The main problem with his characters is that they are so poorly written. Pretty much everyone in the show is a walking cliche. The manner in which Sorkin attempts to portray them as professional and juvenile when it calls for it is ridiculous and undermines the credibility of the characters. Though that said it's not like any of them has a job that could be described as overly taxing. All they seem to do is fact check news that comes across the wire.

If the characters at least behaved in a somewhat realistic manner then some of the poor writing could be forgiven but it's more often than not a poorly conceived farce.

leggo wrote: »

The fact that both elements take place within the same environment doesn't really alter that fact. It's just a tiny, tiny asterisk within a bigger problem. And it kinda needs to be that way for the reasons listed in my first post, that you haven't addressed (i.e. that there wouldn't be characters or they'd need to make a second show run parallel to handle any personal issues the characters are having...taking away from The, y'know, Newsroom part...)

I think I did address that when I said that it's clear that Sorkin is trying to meld two different shows into one. The Newsroom isn't sure what type of show it wants to be. On one hand it wants us to view it as an intelligent, adult drama about these characters and on the other it wants to be a little light and fun. Sadly neither part is successful and a large part of this is down to the characters. They simply aren't believable and a large part of this is due to how they handle themselves in the work place. The West Wing, The Wire and a dozen other shows managed to look at the relationships between characters working in the same environment without having to rely on cheap farce and characters who repeatedly undermine their credibility though stupidity.

leggo

Another point...it's NOT The Wire or West Wing. You say yourself that it doesn't know if it wants to be a comedy or drama. I'd imagine that Sorkin sees it as having elements of both, else he wouldn't write the gags. So while farce may not be appropriate in The Wire, it's a perfectly acceptable element to use in a show that draws a lot on comedy.

If you're comparing it to The Wire, you're not really judging it on merit. You're judging it for what elements of it aren't The Wire.

In this show, the characters are so devoted to their jobs that they must conduct personal business within work (they work long hours, the only time we see them outside of work they tend to be talking shop). It's then plausible that, if you'd like to then imagine an unofficial code of conduct to buy into the premise of a TV show (again, a bit much to ask), the network also gives them leeway to do so as long as it doesn't affect their professional performance.

I've worked in environments like that. I know people who can be juvenile in their personal life because they are workaholics. I still can't understand how you find all of that such an unacceptable premise.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

Another point...it's NOT The Wire or West Wing. You say yourself that it doesn't know if it wants to be a comedy or drama. I'd imagine that Sorkin sees it as having elements of both, else he wouldn't write the gags. So while farce may not be appropriate in The Wire, it's a perfectly acceptable element to use in a show that draws a lot on comedy.

If you're comparing it to The Wire, you're not really judging it on merit. You're judging it for what elements of it aren't The Wire.

In this show, the characters are so devoted to their jobs that they must conduct personal business within work (they work long hours, the only time we see them outside of work they tend to be talking shop). It's then plausible that, if you'd like to then imagine an unofficial code of conduct to buy into the premise of a TV show (again, a bit much to ask), the network also gives them leeway to do so as long as it doesn't affect their professional performance.

I've worked in environments like that. I know people who can be juvenile in their personal life because they are workaholics. I still can't understand how you find all of that such an unacceptable premise.

I'm not comparing it to the Wire or any other show. I judge the show based on it's own merits and a look back through my posts will show that. One of the biggest issues with the show is the manner in which the characters are depicted. We are supposed to believe that the characters in The Newsroom are the best at what they do, that they are intelligent, professionals.

You say that there is leeway given to the manner in which character conduct themselves " as long as it doesn't affect their professional performance" yet in the show it repeatedly affects it. We have one of the main characters, whose job is one of the most important on the floor disappearing off to do the job of someone 4 or 5 levels below his pay grade.

Farce was rather appropriate in the Wire and the show was often at it's best when having a little fun. It managed to be both deeply emotional and laugh out loud funny, something that the Newsroom has never managed.

I'd love for the show to succeed but it needs someone to come in and decide just what type of show it wants to be.

Kirby

ixoy wrote: »

I don't recall "The West Wing" going like this.

I'll raise you a butterball, with a side of woot canal, clemency for a turkey, a lawyer dancing in her office in a dressing gown in front of the president, with a big dollop of glued keyboard to the desk. A professional work place, the west wing was not.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, nostalgia is effecting people's ability to view the West Wing for what it was.....and that's guilty of the same things you are crucifying the newsroom for.

PhiloCypher

Kirby wrote: »

I'll raise you a butterball, with a side of woot canal, clemency for a turkey, a lawyer dancing in her office in a dressing gown in front of the president, with a big dollop of glued keyboard to the desk. A professional work place, the west wing was not.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, nostalgia is effecting people's ability to view the West Wing for what it was.....and that's guilty of the same things you are crucifying the newsroom for.

There is some truth in this I think. Watching newsroom I've often found myself annoyed at the trademark Sorkin verbal diarrhea in ways I wasn't with West Wing and that's probably down to the fact that when West Wing came out that 'rapid fire talking over each other' dialogue was fresh and new, but in the post West Wing world there were a slew of wannabes in the verbal sprinting stakes like Gilmore girls etc, so as a result the patter between Mac and Will just feels old hat and cliché to me now.

QikBax

Whoever thought Olivia Munn would be the best thing about an Aaron Sorkin show?

Handsome Bob

Decent start to the season.

Sorkin is really trying his best to get the audience to feel sorry for Maggie but I'm afraid it's not quite working for me. It's funny as I only realised last night that Alison Pill did a thoroughly nifty little turn in Scott Pilgrim. She's clearly a talented actress so it just goes to show that the problems with Maggie are clearly in Sorkin's hands.

Still not a fan of the random self serving and obnoxious outbursts e.g in this episode Will's rant at the cop, but I guess that at least in this scenario Will knew he was being a dick going after small fish.

It's still a very watchable show but I'd echo Darko's comments; this show has so much potential to be much better than it is, that's the frustrating thing.

QikBax

Maggie is just a cloying, terribly written character unfortunately.

Alison Pill was tremendous in Season 2 of In Treatment

ben.schlomo

Half enjoyed the episode, the death row story was done quite well, and the 'Genoa' thing is intriguing but the Maggie story is still nothing but awful plus the bit in the bar wher Jims new female acquaintance saying Rick Perry will do okay 'until he speaks' was just annoying.

Footoo

That was awful on every level apart from Aaron Sorkin agreeing with me that Willy Nelson does the best version of "Always on my Mind".


The scene with the two lads watching archive footage of Will's first broadcast was pretty icky even by Srkins' standards.

Also the relationship stuff is some of the worst writing I've ever seen on TV....seriously.

squonk

This week's episode was very boring I thought. It just felt overly long. I'd pay for a ticket to Africa for Maggie myself at this point. Her relationship non-story is getting old and very annoying and we're only on episode 2.

The 9/11 piece was vomit inducing. After Will said "I'm going to be with you all night", my immediate thought was "Oh god, hasn't the country suffered enough already today?". Seriously, what patronising, sicking gibberish.

The same can be said of Will letting rip on the cop. Personally I think that reporter is such a twat, the arrest was entirely justified. Infact, I'd say the electric chair would be justified also! What was the point of Mac ridiculing the guy though by pointing out how many were expected to show up at the protest vs how many actually did? It was highly unprofessional. She'd have been far better off dragging him into her office, sitting him down and having a chat about how he needs to stop chasing after stupid news stories and to basically cop on to himself. Of course now the plonker just happens to have accidentally stumbled across a big news story though no work of his own.

The show is still disappointing but not as annoying as last season so it's not time to bow out just yet but it might go that way with me after another few episoodes.

The Black Oil

2.02

The September 11th thing was sentimental twaddle. Maggie's personal life is tiresome. I can just about deal with the others getting involved, but the Youtube angle in particular seriously needs to die. It does nothing but pull the emergency cord and jolts you out of the episode. Enough.

I didn't really have an issue with the rest of it.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

jamc wrote: »

Whoever thought Olivia Munn would be the best thing about an Aaron Sorkin show?

Me. I love her.

I like the show, and I'm not gonna justify why I like it, I just do...

So there you go, there's my two cents.

FloatingVoter

After suffering one season and one and a half episodes of season two I'm quitting this boring nonsense. I gave up when whatshername went into the laundromat about her YouTube problem. It suffers from the fact that I don't care what Bryan Dobson / Dan Rather do on their off-time. Whatever they do, I'd imagine its more interesting than this naval-gazing twaddle.

kenon

Kirby wrote: »

I'll raise you a butterball, with a side of woot canal, clemency for a turkey, a lawyer dancing in her office in a dressing gown in front of the president, with a big dollop of glued keyboard to the desk. A professional work place, the west wing was not.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, nostalgia is effecting people's ability to view the West Wing for what it was.....and that's guilty of the same things you are crucifying the newsroom for.

The issue is balance. In West Wing, there was a balance between serious topics and comic relief. In The Newsroom, the balance isn't there yet (hopefully).

I'll continue watching but it is getting more and more difficult as I find the characters increasingly dislikeable.

FouxDaFaFa

Yup, I'm out too.

Enjoyed discussing it with you guys here, enjoy the rest of the series.

Random recommendation: I was searching for a Newsroom link one day and accidentally came across a Canadian show of the same name. It is hilarious, one of the funniest shows I've ever seen on television. Worth a look.

KerranJast

Wow you guys bowed out before possibly the best episode of the show to date

McKenzie in competent and professional at her job shocker.

leggo

I have to say, while I can see the flaws gaping out at me, I still enjoy the show. Sorkin's dialogue is totally utopian and blessed with hindsight (his characters immediately come out with the kind of thing you think "****, I would've sounded REALLY smart if I'd have said that!" 10 minutes after an argument) but it chirps away quickly enough that I never find myself aggrieved by any inconsistencies or melodrama going on on the screen. I see it, but I don't really mind.

The show is never going to make a Top 10 TV Shows of all-time list (it won't even make a 'Top 5 Aaron Sorkin Projects' or even 'Top 3 Aaron Sorkin TV Shows' list), but I don't watch TV looking for absolute perfection and nothing less. It entertains me. I laugh when they want me to laugh and thinking "Hmm..." when they want me to think "Hmm..."

Call it a guilty pleasure, though I don't even feel guilty for enjoying it tbh. And in a few weeks when Breaking Bad comes back, it'll be a nice way to get in the mood for it on a Monday, especially when I know I have an actual masterpiece to look forward to afterwards.