The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Mister R

This show is so erratic. Sloane is the only character I have consistently liked and felt was somehow plausible because she doesn't have a personality transplant every episode. Although I've no idea what she'd see in Don.

The speech about US elections and how the world viewed them was so vomit inducing. Mack is back to being annoying after doing so well this season.

Also Marcia Gay Harden was interesting in the boardroom scenes and now has turned into some camp soap vamp wandering around ACN in a flashy dress for no real reason.

I'm assuming the Romney woman and Jim sex is being saved for Season 3 or maybe we'll be thrown a curve ball and it won't happen.

Prop Joe

i love the show,Sloan was hilarious this week.I think Will is gonna go kamikaze

gavmcg92

It seems to be getting a lot of hate here and I'm not saying unreasonably so. Personally, I really enjoyed this week's episode. It wasn't as fast paced and exhilarating as last weeks but for me, I love the day to day feel of the show as they do the news.

MightyMighty737

The two part finale seems a bit strange after episode seven with the apparent conclusion of Genoa, ep8 and presumable ep9 seem to be tying up loose ends against the backdrop of the election. It wasn't as intense as ep7 but I enjoyed this weeks show, and for how poor the Jim/Maggie relationship was there are seeds of a brilliant one between

Don and Sloan. I really hope it was him who bought her book.

Mister R

If that spoiler happens I'll be mad.

MightyMighty737

Why? Because it's too contrived? I agree I suppose, but I like their work together and think it'd be a nice way to kick them off properly.

Mister R

Yes cause I'd like them to possibly date people outside the workforce and she is way too hot for him.

syklops

What do people think? Has Mac really been fired?

I was disappointed with this episode. It seemed to have little substance. I liked the ending with the tip off on Petraeus, but the rest of the episode was very blah.

gavmcg92

Anyone think that Will is setting himself up to do or say something on air that forces Lansing to fire him? It all seems to be going that way for me.

Did he fire Mac because he knew that this was their way out? This all revolves around Will telling the ex Romney adviser to have a go at him. Somethings going to happen.

syklops

gavmcg92 wrote: »

Anyone think that Will is setting himself up to do or say something on air that forces Lansing to fire him? It all seems to be going that way for me.

Did he fire Mac because he knew that this was their way out? This all revolves around Will telling the ex Romney adviser to have a go at him. Somethings going to happen.

Well Sorkin was shuffling his feet on whether there was going to be a season 3. Is he wondering, is there a story to tell? If Mac really has been fired, I can't see Jim staying. I mean, they were in combat together. If Will sets him self up to be fired what then? Theres no show. Really don't like where its all going.

gavmcg92

syklops wrote: »

Well Sorkin was shuffling his feet on whether there was going to be a season 3. Is he wondering, is there a story to tell? If Mac really has been fired, I can't see Jim staying. I mean, they were in combat together. If Will sets him self up to be fired what then? Theres no show. Really don't like where its all going.

That's what I was saying to my friends is there any real request for a renewal as of yet? Are they trying to wrap it up?

syklops

gavmcg92 wrote: »

That's what I was saying to my friends is there any real request for a renewal as of yet? Are they trying to wrap it up?

According to Jeff Daniels twitter, its officially coming back for season 3.

gavmcg92

syklops wrote: »

According to Jeff Daniels twitter, its officially coming back for season 3.

I'm interested now, to see what's the significance of Will's comments to the advisor.

syklops

syklops wrote: »

According to Jeff Daniels twitter, its officially coming back for season 3.

Don't put much faith in that. HBO have stated that they are looking into a third season but they've yet to confirm it. The show isn't exactly a ratings winner and critics have been less favourable this season so don't be surprised to see this not get a renewal.

spank_inferno

So far season 2 has more maudlin teenage heart-ache than season 1.

Does anyone know if future episodes feature grown ups doing news stuff?

SL10

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a2a20b0b1b/a-message-to-aaron-sorkin?rel=player

steve_r

SL10 wrote: »

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a2a20b0b1b/a-message-to-aaron-sorkin?rel=player

Liked that a lot. It's a show that promises more than it delivers. For me, I see the faults, I still enjoy it, but I wish it could be better.

syklops

spank_inferno wrote: »

So far season 2 has more maudlin teenage heart-ache than season 1.

Does anyone know if future episodes feature grown ups doing news stuff?

Season 1 got a hell of a lot of criticism and at times it felt like i was the only one on the Internet defending it, but Season 2 has really disappointed me. Genoa had me torn, it was executed well, but there was too much build up. We were given a hint of a major legal case in episode one, but with the last episode coming up, we've not seen a courtroom. The Uganda episode was excellent, and I now want to go buy that book The House on East 88th Street just for the hell of it, and the Genoa episode was excellent, but there was an awful lot of fluff aswell. I want bad stuff to happen to jerry Dantana. If Leona can have Charlie killed surely, she can do something painful to him. I thought it was all building up to a major court battle, real Few Good Men stuff, but really, I don't know where its going.

The stuff at the start with Jim on the Romney campaign was just dross. The only interesting thing was Stillman. Firstname Stillman, Surname Frank. I liked him.

Mister R

My issue with the Genoa story was the had to bring someone in for Season 2 to majorly screw up, it couldn't be any of the precious characters Sorkin has already given us, yet again they all get off the hook and look the innocent parties.

I wasn't fond of the Uganda bit, it would have been ok if I felt Maggie actually had an interest in it but at the start she just wanted to go to "Africa" because of course "Africa" is all the same, from Morocco to South Africa its one homogeneous continent :rolleyes:

Best thing about the Africa bit was I now know how the logistics for the Amazing Race are handled from country to country

Kirby

I know Daniels has said that it's coming back on twitter but that wrapped everything up and felt like a send off.

That felt like a final episode to me.

TheIrishGrover

syklops wrote: »

Season 1 got a hell of a lot of criticism and at times it felt like i was the only one on the Internet defending it, but Season 2 has really disappointed me. Genoa had me torn, it was executed well, but there was too much build up. We were given a hint of a major legal case in episode one, but with the last episode coming up, we've not seen a courtroom. The Uganda episode was excellent, and I now want to go buy that book The House on East 88th Street just for the hell of it, and the Genoa episode was excellent, but there was an awful lot of fluff aswell. I want bad stuff to happen to jerry Dantana. If Leona can have Charlie killed surely, she can do something painful to him. I thought it was all building up to a major court battle, real Few Good Men stuff, but really, I don't know where its going.

The stuff at the start with Jim on the Romney campaign was just dross. The only interesting thing was Stillman. Firstname Stillman, Surname Frank. I liked him.

now I haven't watched the last episode yet so I've been careful about browsing this thread. If I see anything I shouldn't then that's my own fault for looking here before watching.

Anyway, I was the same as you. I really liked season 1 and defended it here many times but, like you, I was really disappointed by this season. The thing I loved about season 1 was it's use of real life events. I thought it was new (Well, new-ish, Drop the Dead Donkey, amongst others, did something similar to various degrees) and interesting. But this whole "Genoa" thing? I just can't understand why they went down this kind of fictional path.

Season 1's timeline ended around the start of August 2011. Since the end of season 1 and, let's say six months ago, the following happened:

• Occupy Wall Street. Barely covered.
• Arab Spring
• Gaddafi killed
• Steve Jobs dies
• Greek Bailout
• Encyclopedia Britannia stops printing
• Coup in Mali
• North Korea!
• Higgs Boson (probably) discovered
• Whitney Houston dies
• The pope
• Russian meteor
• Boston bomb
• The US election (kind of covered. Missed opportunity)

Tip of the iceberg. Now some of these are big things (North Korea) and some would be small "lighter" stories that they would have just touched on for a bit of fun: Jobs dying, the russian meteor, pope etc.

I know they have to write these well in advance but come on, some of these happened a almost 2 years ago now.
I just can't understand why they had to come up with Genoa and ignore one of the main hooks of the show.

Disappointed

titan18

Do not iron clothes while wearing them

"This is stupid"

It's always nice when a TV show of film can sum itself up with a line of dialogue and watching the series 2 finale of The Newsroom that one line was the most apt way of describing what was unfolding. People go on and on about Sorkin being some exceptional writer with an amazing ear for dialgoue but to me he's a television Tarantino. Someone whose dialogue never rings true and every character sounds exactly the same. I get that Sorkin thinks that he is more intelligent the you, me and those the run news networks but based on The Newsroom I'd would not be the least bit surprised to discover that Sorkin is actually a 17 year old high school girl whose favorite show is Gossip Girl.

The Newsroom is a show for supposed intellectuals to sit back and repeatedly chime in every now and again saying "hey that's what I think too". There is absolutely nothing of note here and Sorkin offers not one single way in which a 24 hours rolling news network could be better run. His observations are simplistic, obvious and let's be honest here, when you have the benefit of 2 years hindsight it would be impossible not to be able to pick holes in news reporting. The show is pretty much the live action equivalent of Captain hindsight from South Park. It exists to point out the obvious and nothing more and the final episode really hit this home.

The near 60 minute run time was glacial and felt like a 3 hour miniseries. The relationships between characters was simplistic and poorly implemented and not the least bit interesting. Did anyone really not see the Don and Sloane storyline a week ago, it's like Sorkin is working with a join the dots colouring book. Maggie's ongoing drama was poorly handled and you gotta love how Sorkin conveniently forgot the "Maggie's a drunk plot". I get that her character underwent a horrible experience but I simply don't buy it. Sure it must be tragic having a kid die in your arms but if a year later you still have trouble going about your day to day life then you need help and a new line of work. What good is a reporter/researcher/producer that you can't send into the field for fear that they will fall apart.

It's odd that one of the few characters I like in the show is Jerry. He's the only one in the entire show who is the least bit believable. Sure he's a sod for doctoring the tape but unlike the rest of the characters at least he's interesting and has something to say beyond pointing out the obvious.

I really hope that the the show doesn't get a third season as on the evidence of what we have seen it simply does not deserve one. The writing is amongst the least interesting and banal on TV and makes The Walking Dead look like it's written by geniuses. It's clear from how things played out in this episode that Sorkin isn't expecting a third season which is why he went to town with his cliched, derivative and inane relationship drama for a full 60 minutes. The entire thing has been so cliched that I'm pretty sure that both Matthew McConaughey of 2005 and Katherine Heigel would turn it down for being identical to a dozen rom-coms they'd already made.

Prop Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

"This is stupid"


I really hope that the the show doesn't get a third season as on the evidence of what we have seen it simply does not deserve one.

WOW - Cancel it because you dont like it?

I have to say i have enjoyed this series more than any the last few years,I actually look forward to it every week more than Breaking Bad.

I think it's a great show for what it is,I don't watch it and pray that it's something else

Prop Joe

Prop Joe wrote: »

WOW - Cancel it because you dont like it?

I have to say i have enjoyed this series more than any the last few years,I actually look forward to it every week more than Breaking Bad.

I think it's a great show for what it is,I don't watch it and pray that it's something else

No cancel it not because I simply don't like it but rather because it hasn't done anything of note. To not only try and put it in the same league as Breaking Bad but imply it's a better show is an insult to Breaking Bad. Just what show do you think the Headroom is? Is it a comedy or is it a drama or is it a combination of both. Is it a character study, a relationship drama or is it an insight into hoe news networks are run. You're guess is as good as mine as Sorkin seems to change his mind on what type of show he's making on a weekly basis

Prop Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

No cancel it not because I simply don't like it but rather because it hasn't done anything of note. To not only try and put it in the same league as Breaking Bad but imply it's a better show is an insult to Breaking Bad. Just what show do you think the Headroom is? Is it a comedy or is it a drama or is it a combination of both. Is it a character study, a relationship drama or is it an insight into hoe news networks are run. You're guess is as good as mine as Sorkin seems to change his mind on what type of show he's making on a weekly basis

Yeah i think it is and i enjoy it for what it is,I'm not craving a serious news drama. I thoroughly enjoy Breaking Bad and comparing the 2 is as you said not fair mainly because of genre and nothing else.

There are many acclaimed TV shows out there that i think are just muck but each to there own and i dont shout that it should be cancelled.

The TV world is big enough for a little variety

gavmcg92

Is the alert at the end of any significant importance? Can anyone make out what story it might be? I believe it was about Beijing

ReacherCreature

It was about China getting a new leader I think. Not a serious change in world politics so there's no bearing on the next season. I think it might have symbolised that life goes on and The Newsroom staff have kept their jobs and will continue working. On a micro-level it may hint that Maggie is back in the game and her normal frame of mind but more disturbingly (for us) it may look towards Maggie/Jim for the future as Jim clicked the news alert on his first day but that's a weak point and only train-of-thought typing.

I thought that episode was OK, very flat and was slow going at times. Also Will's demanding that he be taken apart by the Republican advisor at the end of Election Night Pt. I didn't surface in this? More of the same romantic stuff that's repetitive and boring for a lot of viewers that have aired their concerns. The show doesn't seem to know its identity or it's a hodge-podge of everything. I think it's running away from being truly good. Very up and down season I thought with Red Team III being the best episode by far.

FortuneChip

gavmcg92 wrote: »

Is the alert at the end of any significant importance? Can anyone make out what story it might be? I believe it was about Beijing

The actual report isn't really relevant. It's just to reinforce the point Jim made about her being tougher than she thinks.
She said that Jim, Mac, Will & Don were tough; she wasn't like them. She said how she first noticed Jim chasing down a yellow report when nobody else seemed concerned.

The whole episode seemed like a series finale, and not just the end of a season.
I don't think it will be back, but if it is, here's some things we won't need to spend time on
They've married off Will & Mac, so no more "Will they, won't they?"
Maggie & Jim have reconciled and seem to have a positive friendship, so no more "Will they, won't they?"
Don & Sloan have made a pretty big public display of affection, so no more "Will they, won't they?"

Mister R

That certainly seemed like the end of the show full stop, but of course it could still be renewed so I guess that was the intention. To wrap up but also finish if necessary.

I seriously couldn't handle the romance stuff, and Marcia Gay Harden rambling around like a soap opera bitch like something out of Dynasty, yes she was good behind the desk in the boardroom but the last 2 episodes totally over used her for no real reason.

Prop Joe

Prop Joe wrote: »

Yeah i think it is and i enjoy it for what it is,I'm not craving a serious news drama. I thoroughly enjoy Breaking Bad and comparing the 2 is as you said not fair mainly because of genre and nothing else.

There are many acclaimed TV shows out there that i think are just muck but each to there own and i dont shout that it should be cancelled.

The TV world is big enough for a little variety

Mash was a dramady done right. It could be funny as hell one minute and then genuinelly moving the next. The Newsroom never gets the balance right and just sways from one couched moment to the next without a hint of originality. It feels like something a film student whose watched far too many hours of Tv would submit as their final project.

Prop Joe

gavmcg92

Surely if Jeff Daniels has said that season 3 is definitely a go, we're going to be seeing Newsroom back for another season. He wouldn't say something like that if he hadn't been given some sort of confirmation. I know we have yet to see an official word from the channel but I would imagine it will be back for one more.

Lollipops23

My only major gripe with Season 2 was the weird direction they took with Sloane Sabbith- she's an economist, supposedly, and we were led to believe that she was a serious brain. She was fantastic in the Fukushima episode.
Why have they turned her into a ditzy moron? All of a sudden she's focusing on really dimwitted stuff (the book signing for instance).

I don't think the yellow news alert is anything to pay attention to- it was more signifying that her passion for the news had been re-ignited (like Jim's, as discussed earlier in the episode).

I hope there's a Season 3, purely as I want to see them draw Dantana's blood. And more Leona. All the Leona.

Pepe LeFrits

This show is so up and down.

Some great stories but it just continually lets itself down with the characters' constant whimsy. Honestly, all the characters in this show are basically the same. It's hard to believe they come from the same guy who gave us Jed Bartlett, Leo, Toby, Josh, Sam, CJ and so on...

S.M.B.

Deleted User wrote: »

"This is stupid"

It's always nice when a TV show of film can sum itself up with a line of dialogue and watching the series 2 finale of The Newsroom that one line was the most apt way of describing what was unfolding. People go on and on about Sorkin being some exceptional writer with an amazing ear for dialgoue but to me he's a television Tarantino. Someone whose dialogue never rings true and every character sounds exactly the same. I get that Sorkin thinks that he is more intelligent the you, me and those the run news networks but based on The Newsroom I'd would not be the least bit surprised to discover that Sorkin is actually a 17 year old high school girl whose favorite show is Gossip Girl.

The Newsroom is a show for supposed intellectuals to sit back and repeatedly chime in every now and again saying "hey that's what I think too". There is absolutely nothing of note here and Sorkin offers not one single way in which a 24 hours rolling news network could be better run. His observations are simplistic, obvious and let's be honest here, when you have the benefit of 2 years hindsight it would be impossible not to be able to pick holes in news reporting. The show is pretty much the live action equivalent of Captain hindsight from South Park. It exists to point out the obvious and nothing more and the final episode really hit this home.

The near 60 minute run time was glacial and felt like a 3 hour miniseries. The relationships between characters was simplistic and poorly implemented and not the least bit interesting. Did anyone really not see the Don and Sloane storyline a week ago, it's like Sorkin is working with a join the dots colouring book. Maggie's ongoing drama was poorly handled and you gotta love how Sorkin conveniently forgot the "Maggie's a drunk plot". I get that her character underwent a horrible experience but I simply don't buy it. Sure it must be tragic having a kid die in your arms but if a year later you still have trouble going about your day to day life then you need help and a new line of work. What good is a reporter/researcher/producer that you can't send into the field for fear that they will fall apart.

It's odd that one of the few characters I like in the show is Jerry. He's the only one in the entire show who is the least bit believable. Sure he's a sod for doctoring the tape but unlike the rest of the characters at least he's interesting and has something to say beyond pointing out the obvious.

I really hope that the the show doesn't get a third season as on the evidence of what we have seen it simply does not deserve one. The writing is amongst the least interesting and banal on TV and makes The Walking Dead look like it's written by geniuses. It's clear from how things played out in this episode that Sorkin isn't expecting a third season which is why he went to town with his cliched, derivative and inane relationship drama for a full 60 minutes. The entire thing has been so cliched that I'm pretty sure that both Matthew McConaughey of 2005 and Katherine Heigel would turn it down for being identical to a dozen rom-coms they'd already made.

This comes across as way off the mark in my opinion and it looks like you're bring a certain amount of bias to the table.

There never was a "Maggie's a drunk plot. Just as there was never a "Maggie's a slut plot". There was however a "Maggie is dealing with some form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder plot".

They also clearly explained that she wasn't having trouble going about her day to day business at the office so there would be no need to relieve her of her duties (as well as the legal can of worms that would open).

A young girl is put in a near death situation, survives at the cost of a kids life, displays signs of self-destructive/reckless behaviour outside of her workplace while refusing to engage with anybody about the whole situation seems remarkably plausible to me.

I don't buy "you" not buying it.

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

This comes across as way off the mark in my opinion and it looks like you're bring a certain amount of bias to the table.

There never was a "Maggie's a drunk plot. Just as there was never a "Maggie's a slut plot". There was however a "Maggie is dealing with some form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder plot".

They also clearly explained that she wasn't having trouble going about her day to day business at the office so there would be no need to relieve her of her duties (as well as the legal can of worms that would open).

A young girl is put in a near death situation, survives at the cost of a kids life, displays signs of self-destructive/reckless behaviour outside of her workplace while refusing to engage with anybody about the whole situation seems remarkably plausible to me.

I don't buy "you" not buying it.

I'll be the first to admit that I think that Maggie is one of the worst written characters on TV but if you read back you'll see how I spoke of how I'd like to have seen here post Africa trauma used to make here character more believable and likeable.

And yes there was a Maggie is a drunk plot hinted at. Multiple characters commented upon here turning up to work and smelling of booze and while it didn't affect her day to day work Sorkin went out of his way to drive the point home that Maggie was having serious issues and drinking to relieve them. Hell Jim's new girlfriend made a number of comments on Maggie drinking. Why bother wasting time on Maggie in bars drinking and characters pointing out that she smells of booze if it goes nowhere.

Her post Africa character was about as plausible as the Maggie of series one, and that's not very. There's so much that Sorkin could have done with here as a character but instead he choose to let her cut and dye her own hair and drink a little before once again forgetting about her till he needs a scene to add a little emotion to. It's a shame that the character is so poorly written as Alison Pill is a really great actress when she's given the right material. Rewatching Goon a few weeks back and I was struck by just how well handled the love story was and how the Newsroom could really take some lessons from it.

Thinking back over series 1 and perhaps Maggie has always been a heavy drinker, would certainly help explain why she acted how she did before even thinking of going to Africa.

I wonder if the lack of an official announcement regarding a third series has something to do with Sorkin perhaps thinking that he's told the story he wants to tell. Would be interesting to see someone else come in as show runner as supposedly the cast all believe that a third series will be made. Then again it could simply be that HBO doesn't think the show has an audience big enough to justify a third series, after all the series 2 finale had the third worst viewing figures in the shows entire run.

Prop Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll be the first to admit that I think that Maggie is one of the worst written characters on TV but if you read back you'll see how I spoke of how I'd like to have seen here post Africa trauma used to make here character more believable and likeable.

And yes there was a Maggie is a drunk plot hinted at. Multiple characters commented upon here turning up to work and smelling of booze and while it didn't affect her day to day work Sorkin went out of his way to drive the point home that Maggie was having serious issues and drinking to relieve them. Hell Jim's new girlfriend made a number of comments on Maggie drinking. Why bother wasting time on Maggie in bars drinking and characters pointing out that she smells of booze if it goes nowhere.

Her post Africa character was about as plausible as the Maggie of series one, and that's not very. There's so much that Sorkin could have done with here as a character but instead he choose to let her cut and dye her own hair and drink a little before once again forgetting about her till he needs a scene to add a little emotion to. It's a shame that the character is so poorly written as Alison Pill is a really great actress when she's given the right material. Rewatching Goon a few weeks back and I was struck by just how well handled the love story was and how the Newsroom could really take some lessons from it.

Thinking back over series 1 and perhaps Maggie has always been a heavy drinker, would certainly help explain why she acted how she did before even thinking of going to Africa.

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if the lack of an official announcement regarding a third series has something to do with Sorkin perhaps thinking that he's told the story he wants to tell. Would be interesting to see someone else come in as show runner as supposedly the cast all believe that a third series will be made. Then again it could simply be that HBO doesn't think the show has an audience big enough to justify a third series, after all the series 2 finale had the third worst viewing figures in the shows entire run.

It's obvious it's Sorkin you have a problem with and not the show

Prop Joe

Prop Joe wrote: »

It's obvious it's Sorkin you have a problem with and not the show

I have major issues with the show and all of them stem from Sorkin's writing. I've loved some of his past work but his writing on the Newsroom is poor and even the shows biggest fan will agree. A lot of people have given the show a pass simply because it's from the guy who gave us The West Wing.

S.M.B.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll be the first to admit that I think that Maggie is one of the worst written characters on TV but if you read back you'll see how I spoke of how I'd like to have seen here post Africa trauma used to make here character more believable and likeable.

And yes there was a Maggie is a drunk plot hinted at. Multiple characters commented upon here turning up to work and smelling of booze and while it didn't affect her day to day work Sorkin went out of his way to drive the point home that Maggie was having serious issues and drinking to relieve them. Hell Jim's new girlfriend made a number of comments on Maggie drinking. Why bother wasting time on Maggie in bars drinking and characters pointing out that she smells of booze if it goes nowhere.

Her post Africa character was about as plausible as the Maggie of series one, and that's not very. There's so much that Sorkin could have done with here as a character but instead he choose to let her cut and dye her own hair and drink a little before once again forgetting about her till he needs a scene to add a little emotion to. It's a shame that the character is so poorly written as Alison Pill is a really great actress when she's given the right material. Rewatching Goon a few weeks back and I was struck by just how well handled the love story was and how the Newsroom could really take some lessons from it.

Thinking back over series 1 and perhaps Maggie has always been a heavy drinker, would certainly help explain why she acted how she did before even thinking of going to Africa.

My point is it her drinking wasn't a plot in itself. It was a facet of her PTSD. As was the cutting of her hair. There was no need for that specific point to be addressed in the final few episodes. Her arc came to a close with Jim finally confronting her in a way that allowed her to express her side of the story. It seemed like in doing so a certain weight was lifted from her shoulders and a glint of optimism was seen in her final scene.

Maybe Sorkin could have spent a bit more time fleshing out her story but to me it got equal billing amongst the ensemble of characters.

I found her (and her arc) to be perfectly believable outside of the clearly slapstick like moments that she's given.

I just think it's the wrong stick to be beating Sorkin with.

shopgirl195

Just some thoughts on the Newsroom:

I can't help be thinking whether this show would have gotten an easier time from critics and audience alike if Sorkin had written it under a pseudonym or something to that effect. The show gets such a hard time but is it all justified?

It is definitely more interesting than some shows with steady renewals. Have The Newsroom's audience become so caught up in feeling intellectually superior in their critical analysis of the show that they can't just enjoy it for what it is - An hour long TV show that isn't going to set the world alight. For all we critique Sorkin about his supposed superiority complex we seem collectively guilty of a similar approach.

Perhaps some consider 'The Newsroom' a wasted opportunity to truly reinvent mainstream media's approach to news. But is that not too high a task to ask of any tv show? The West Wing is widely lauded and recognised as fantastic television but lets not fool ourselves - it did not actually change the political landscape. Rather imho it's greatest achievement was educating while not patronising and keeping a nice balance between humour and drama. The Newsroom hasn't achieved this balance but still supplies an entertaining and interesting hour of tv. Can't we just take it and enjoy it at face value? Among countless game shows, talent competitions, property shows, reality tv and standard sitcoms I think the Newsroom is still a good addition to a tv lineup.

Obviously it would benefit from a fresh approach sans Sorkin as Supreme Ruler as well as a few female writers to inject some gender balance but I think the show doesn't entirely merit the waves of criticism it receives. I'm still holding out for a third season

FortuneChip

One thing that actually confuses me is the timing of Maggie cutting her hair.
After she gets back from Africa she's seen drinking in the bar alone, going home with the barman etc, all still with long blonde hair, but by the end of the season, (which I believe lasts 11 months), it is cut.
Is it likely that only then did her hair frustrate her?

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

My point is it her drinking wasn't a plot in itself. It was a facet of her PTSD. As was the cutting of her hair. There was no need for that specific point to be addressed in the final few episodes. Her arc came to a close with Jim finally confronting her in a way that allowed her to express her side of the story. It seemed like in doing so a certain weight was lifted from her shoulders and a glint of optimism was seen in her final scene.

Maybe Sorkin could have spent a bit more time fleshing out her story but to me it got equal billing amongst the ensemble of characters.

I found her (and her arc) to be perfectly believable outside of the clearly slapstick like moments that she's given.

I just think it's the wrong stick to be beating Sorkin with.

I get that it was wrapped up quite neatly and wasn't intended as an over all plot but from all the build up one expects a little more pay off. Why bother spending so much time on something only to then ignore it for the next few weeks. The show has repeatedly started one storyline only to then forget about them. I'd love to have seen that Maggie situation go somewhere beyond the obvious but as the credits rolled on series 2 the status quo had simply returned to normal and I'm struggling to see where the show could go.

Sorkin's writing has been rather poor this past series and while it's better than in series 1 he has continued to repeat all the same mistakes. The characters are at this stage interchangeable and lack any real individual personality. The way he's used Sloane this season has been atrocious and his handling of Jim was no better. There was so much that both characters could do but all Sorking wants to do is hammer home the relationship drama which is the shows least interesting aspect.

Watching the first episode of series 6 of Sons of Anarchy and it's amazing just how well Kurt Sutter and his writing staff can juggle so many different plots and characters and never shortchange the viewer or the shows characters. I really do hope that series 3, if it goes ahead brings on a new show runner who can finally decide just what type of show The Newsroom wants to be.

syklops

FortuneChip wrote: »

One thing that actually confuses me is the timing of Maggie cutting her hair.
After she gets back from Africa she's seen drinking in the bar alone, going home with the barman etc, all still with long blonde hair, but by the end of the season, (which I believe lasts 11 months), it is cut.
Is it likely that only then did her hair frustrate her?

To further confuses you her hair was cut in the first episode as well.

FortuneChip

syklops wrote: »

To further confuses you her hair was cut in the first episode as well.

But by the looks of it, it was well after she came back from Africa that she got it cut. As you said, it's cut after Jerry's been fired, sure. But in the African set episode, it's made to look like she cut it almost as soon as she got home, which wasn't the case.

The Black Oil

Some mixed feelings with 2.08 and 2.09. There was a drop in quality with these last two episodes. I think mainly because they put the personal stuff back in focus, more so in the finale. Some of the set ups were too obvious - Charlie bumping into the girl and knocking over the drinks, ergo Jim finds out, blah blah and no, I don't really care for him Skyping in every other scene. I have mixed feelings on the show's smacking down of Republicans and dialling up the Sorkin-speak. Whether I agree with it or not, I just don't know if it's serving the show well creatively. But more than that, the frustration I have with the show in these last two is it's sometimes like Sorkin is just ticking boxes. Look, I like him. He's had a lot of success in the past and is certainly not beyond criticism. I don't think the show is designed for intellectuals. That smacks of being a 'well, all Apple users are iSheep' take on things. Whilst I didn't praise the US House of Cards as much as some others did, I did like how it built the relationships between the characters - Newsroom hasn't been as successful here. Who knows what goes in the show's writers' room.

I like Sloan. I like Don, not necessarily together. I don't really like Jim. He seems too young to me (admittedly, that may be the case in real life deputy EP or whatever his gig is) and that's part of having him near Maggie, but his character does nothing for me. I love Charlie, I like Will enough, too.

At least we didn't have to suffer a Coldplay montage this year. In spite of these grumbles, I still enjoy it at some level.

I Heart Internet

I'm really enjoying the 2nd Season of The Newsroom.

I think it's more entertaining than the 1st. There are a lot of likeable characters. The big Genoa story moves things along pretty nicely and some of the dialogue is very witty. Charlie is a delight and I can see why they have him on screen more in this season.

Whilst I will not be able to articulate myself as some of the posters here....these are my thoughts on season2

Sweet Jesus it was some pack of cheesy writing. I watched all of it over the wkend and by the end I didn't care who resign got fired or other wise. I never got invested in any of the characters. Jim skyping yer wan the whole time was irritating, it was so obvious who bought sloanes book, the whole mac and will at the end was just awkward, it just didn't seem right or something! I agree with other posters about what they did with sloans character.

Can't believe it's written by the same guy who wrote my beloved west wing

civis_liberalis

Zander Strong Ginseng, sorry to hear you didn't like it. I was very entertained by it and look forward to another season of it. I thought some of the episodes were excellent TV. Maybe I'm rather easily please, but there ye go.