The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

civis_liberalis

civis_liberalis wrote: »

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.

Maybe it was just my mood at the wkend! I'd love to know what I thought of it if I hadnt seen the west wing.
I just found it all so clichéd

syklops

The Black Oil wrote: »

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.

Despite being a long term supporter of The newsroom, Id agree there was a drop in something in 8 and 9. I was at home last night and had a couple episodes recorded on my parents Sky+. I had the choice of Genoa part 2 and election night parts 1 and 2, and I went with Genoa despite having seen it far more times than election night. Episode 8 is setting up episode 9, but 9 feels very much like a last episode ever. Genoa was expertly done in my opinion.

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.

There an awful awful lot of comments like this on this thread. Articulate this for me. If you didnt like it, why did you keep watching it? You said you watched the entire thing over the weekend, so 9 episodes yeah? You spent 9 hours out of the weekend watching something you didn't like? Why? Why do that to yourself?

Because i wanted to finish it out in the hope that it redeemed itself in the final episode. That ok with you?

I'd watched season 1 and had enjoyed as it filled somewhat the void since the west wing

syklops

Zander Strong Ginseng wrote: »

Because i wanted to finish it out in the hope that it redeemed itself in the final episode. That ok with you?

Did it?

The news and hows its made has only ever been parodied, with the likes of Drop the Dead donkey so, how is it clichéd?

syklops

syklops wrote: »

Did it?

The news and hows its made has only ever been parodied, with the likes of Drop the Dead donkey so, how is it clichéd?

No it didnt

I'm talking bout the stories of Sloan n don n the ending. Also with all the senior staff wanting to resign. That's what i call clichéd. All got a bit yawnsome

I feel like I'm defending my opinion to Sorkin himself here!!!!

syklops

Zander Strong Ginseng wrote: »

No it didnt

I'm talking bout the stories of Sloan n don n the ending. Also with all the senior staff wanting to resign. That's what i call clichéd. All got a bit yawnsome

I feel like I'm defending my opinion to Sorkin himself here!!!!

Sorry but if you read the thread there has been a lot of one line comments along the lines of "What a pile of sh1te", so Im simply asking you to qualify your statements.

Did Genoa not grab you in any way?

syklops

syklops wrote: »

Sorry but if you read the thread there has been a lot of one line comments along the lines of "What a pile of sh1te", so Im simply asking you to qualify your statements.

Did Genoa not grab you in any way?

Yep I've read the thread and giving my opinion!I'd almost preferred it if they didn't show him editing the tape. I'd have liked it if the penny had dropped when mac realised.

But that is just my mere humble opinion

syklops

Zander Strong Ginseng wrote: »

Yep I've read the thread and giving my opinion!I'd almost preferred it if they didn't show him editing the tape. I'd have liked it if the penny had dropped when mac realised.

But that is just my mere humble opinion

Theres nothing wrong with giving your opinion and there is nothing wrong with not liking the program. I'd just like people to say why, what with this being a discussion forum.

We both seem to agree on The West Wing. How would you feel if someone said that they thought the West Wing was crap and then didn't say anything else?

syklops

syklops wrote: »

Theres nothing wrong with giving your opinion and there is nothing wrong with not liking the program. I'd just like people to say why, what with this being a discussion forum.

We both seem to agree on The West Wing. How would you feel if someone said that they thought the West Wing was crap and then didn't say anything else?

If someone said to me the west wing was cheesy and clichéd then I'd think oh that's a pity, I loved and then leave it at that!

syklops

Zander Strong Ginseng wrote: »

If someone said to me the west wing was cheesy and clichéd then I'd think oh that's a pity, I loved and then leave it at that!

That would certainly be conducive to a discussion in a discussion forum.

syklops

syklops wrote: »

That would certainly be conducive to a discussion in a discussion forum.

Clearly I must be a valued member of boards then!

evilivor

Truth/Fiction.

'We were wrong': CBS's Lara Logan apologizes for Benghazi report

-- CBS correspondent Lara Logan apologized Friday and said the network was "wrong" for a "60 Minutes" report that raised questions about the Obama administration's response to last year's attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

The assault left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

"In this case, we were wrong. We made a mistake," Logan said on "CBS This Morning." "That's disappointing for any journalist. It's very disappointing for me."

A primary source for the "60 Minutes" report on October 27 was a security contractor using the pseudonym "Morgan Jones," later identified as Dylan Davies. Davies told CBS he was able to reach the Benghazi compound on the night of September 11, 2012, scale a wall and even fight off a militant.
Also on Friday, the publisher of a book containing Davies' account said it was suspending the sale and publication of the book. Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, is recommending that booksellers not sell "The Embassy House" and return the books, spokeswoman Jennifer Robinson told CNN.

The "60 Minutes" story broadcast October 27 cast doubt on whether the Obama administration sent all possible help to try to save Stevens and his three colleagues. The story was then cited by congressional Republicans who have demanded to know why a military rescue was not attempted.

On Friday, Logan responded to questions from CBS's Norah O'Donnell, who pressed her for details about Davies.

"What we know now is, he told the FBI a different story to what he told us," Logan said. "That was the moment for us when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source and we were wrong to put him on air, and we apologize to our viewers."

Logan was also asked about how CBS vetted Davies and his story.
"We verified him, confirmed who he was, that he was working for the State Department at the time, that he was in Benghazi at the special mission compound the night of the attack," Logan said. "He showed us -- he gave us access to communications he had with U.S. government officials."

"The Embassy House" tells the same story Davies told Logan. Davies also told Logan that he acted in violation of his employer's orders to stay away from the compound.

Since the revelations about problems with the story, Logan said CBS has tried to contact Davies but has not heard from him.

SherlockWatson

Found this recently and watched the two seasons over a short period of time, I really enjoyed it myself, thought Sam Waterston was absolutely brilliant, looking forward to season 3 - if there is one.

don ramo

SherlockWatson wrote: »

Found this recently and watched the two seasons over a short period of time, I really enjoyed it myself, thought Sam Waterston was absolutely brilliant, looking forward to season 3 - if there is one.

there certainly will be a third season, it was renewed not long after season 2 ended, i think sorkin is working on a steve jobs film, so there may be some kind of delay, maybe a month or two,

the show really benefits from block viewing, its one of them shows that would really annoy you when you watch week to week,

dogsears

don ramo wrote: »

there certainly will be a third season, it was renewed not long after season 2 ended, i think sorkin is working on a steve jobs film, so there may be some kind of delay, maybe a month or two,

Didn't HBO rein back on 3rd season talk shortly after Jeff Daniels tweeted about it? I think they said they wanted to make a 3rd season but needed to work on schedules etc with AS. But since then there's basically been radio silence. I'd have expected to hear something further by now if there was going to be a season 3 in 2014.

The Black Oil

Yeah, I think so. I wouldn't be so confident about a third season at the moment...

SherlockWatson

Well I for one really hope that their is another season.

Jeff Daniels really nailed the role imo and played it perfectly.

The moment with Will, Don, Mac and Charlie after the gifford shooting was brilliant, "You're a ****in newsman Don I ever tell you otherwise, you punch me in the face" gave me chills.

Definitely will be getting a rewatch from me before the summer.

kryogen

I would watch a 3rd season, I enjoyed the show, but at the same time, I wouldn't really be that bothered if it didn't get renewed. I feel it was an opportunity missed overall.

gavmcg92

Really looking forward to another series. Obviously not as fast paced as some other series on tv at the moment, but still great to watch.

squonk

Wouldn't be bothered about the shows loss at this point. Definite improvement this season but still too much silliness and just a slightly above average show overall. I'd expect this ensemble to be way above average. If the show is cancelled then Sorkin has nobody to blame but himself.

JP Liz V1

Thrill wrote: »

Newsroom to get a third and final season.



http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/newsroom-renewed-final-season-hbo/

I wonder was it Sorkin's plan or HBO's to end after 3

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I wonder was it Sorkin's plan or HBO's to end after 3

Given that it took them so long to officially renew the show I would imagine that HBO took the decision to end the show. I'm surprised that it got another series and assume that it was done in part so as to keep Sorkin happy.

huey1975

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

aidan_walsh

Not really that big of a surprise. Hopefully the show will live up more to the promise of what we saw in Season 2 with the original news storyline.

I Heart Internet

Yeah, 3rd and final season sounds about right.

The show is entertaining but I don' think it has the legs for anything more than that.

syklops

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah, 3rd and final season sounds about right.

The show is entertaining but I don' think it has the legs for anything more than that.

I suspect Sorkin suspected that 2 would be the last. A lot of storylines got dealt with Mac and Will, Sloan and Don etc.

Its possible with these storylines, a big gripe with many the show can find new ground and improve.

Although, its a bit of a catch 22 situation. A program which shows the inner workings of the media and sometimes critiques the media is not going to be popular with the media. Where do HBO get their stats on how popular a program is? The media.

Coconut Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

Given that it took them so long to officially renew the show I would imagine that HBO took the decision to end the show. I'm surprised that it got another series and assume that it was done in part so as to keep Sorkin happy.

Can't remember where I read it but the claim was Sorkin was the hold out as he wanted to concentrate on his movie scripts.

dogsears

Not especially upset at the news Season 3 will be the last. I think Sorkin relaxes a bit when there's a clear end date in sight. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if he never did TV again (or perhaps after the Chateau Marmont project happens, if ever). He must know by now (perhaps since the end of Studio 60?) that he'll just never do a West Wing again, so why keep setting himself up for the fail, with all the attendant mass critical pile-on. It might just be a movie every couple of years from this point.

aidan_walsh

Aaron Sorkin is sorry for some things about The Newsroom

The setting was the Tribeca Film Festival, where Jon Favreau (the former Obama speechwriter, not the other one) asked Sorkin about what he’s learned about the press, after two years of appearing to scold it about how it does its job. Unexpectedly for a man who often seems to respect only those members of the media he himself invents, Sorkin apologized—to them and to everyone.

“I’m going to let you all stand in for everyone in the world, if you don’t mind. I think you and I got off on the wrong foot with The Newsroom and I apologize and I’d like to start over… I think that there’s been a terrible misunderstanding. I did not set the show in the recent past in order to show the pros how it should have been done. That was and remains the furthest thing from my mind. I set the show in the recent past because I didn’t want to make up fake news. It was going to be weird if the world that these people were living in did not in any way resemble the world that you were living in… Also, I wanted the option of having a terrific dynamic that you can get when the audience knows more than the characters do…

So, I wasn’t trying to and I’m not capable of teaching a professional journalist a lesson. That wasn’t my intent and it’s never my intent to teach you a lesson or try to persuade you or anything.”

...

What Sorkin does know, however, is that he’s finally getting better. “I feel like I’m just now starting to learn how to write it,” he said of The Newsroom, framing the first two seasons as “a learning curve, and unfortunately, those lessons are learned in front of several million people.” Now that the show is entering its third—and final—season, Sorkin says, “I wish that I could go back to the beginning of The Newsroom and start again.”

Kirby

Wow. That's both brutal and refreshing to hear. I cant think of many other show runners who admit that out loud.

squonk

Well all he had to do was read the thread here after the first few episodes of Season 1 to learn about the problems! I'm sure there are identical threads in TV forums everywhere voicing the same opinions.

Strikes me as face saving. He knows the show is cack. He had Season 2 to address that and he did to a point but, for now, I think it's a face saving excercise to keep the press on side, as he realises he'll need them in the future.

don ramo

the newsroom is simply a massively missed opportunity for everyone involved, and thats how it will be remembered, the casting i think is pretty good, it was the character development that was bad,

season 2 rectified some of the issues, realistically it should have rectified them all, hopefully after that statement it means a bit more attention will be paid to all aspect of the show for season 3, but its to little to late now seeing as season 2 is to be the last,

i wonder if it somehow increased it audience by 50% would it be renewed,

leggo

I think it's more a genuine, "Ohhhh, I see how you read it that way. My bad..." than anything sinister or an admission of defeat. The press have been harder on this than they've needed to be and that's bled into the perceptions of people who take stock in recaps and reviewers.

I know people who have great taste in television who love this show, and they don't read reviews or message boards. But people who do seem to feel obligated to criticise it so they're a part of 'the conversation'. It's rare, even on the Internet, you find a show so held up against the microscope and picked apart with such paper-think pedantry as you do The Newsroom.

It's not a perfect show, but it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be, and it's because if the media think you're attacking them they'll savage you.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

I think it's more a genuine, "Ohhhh, I see how you read it that way. My bad..." than anything sinister or an admission of defeat. The press have been harder on this than they've needed to be and that's bled into the perceptions of people who take stock in recaps and reviewers.

I know people who have great taste in television who love this show, and they don't read reviews or message boards. But people who do seem to feel obligated to criticise it so they're a part of 'the conversation'. It's rare, even on the Internet, you find a show so held up against the microscope and picked apart with such paper-think pedantry as you do The Newsroom.

It's not a perfect show, but it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be, and it's because if the media think you're attacking them they'll savage you.

It's amazing how far fans of the show will go to defend it. So, if you aren't a fan of the show and criticise the show then you're just doing it to fit in. What utter nonsense. The reason I criticise the show is because it's not all that good. It's a great set up but it's been squandered on a show full of stock characters, relationships out of a teenage romance novel and some awful writing. I don't read reviews of shows or recaps, I judge each show on it's own merits and couldn't care less if I'm part of 'the conversation' or not.

The show is incredibly flawed and part of the reason it's been examined in such depth by the media is because it deals with the media and spends it's time criticising them without having anything to say beyond the obvious. That and the fact that it's the latest show from one of televisions most celebrated creators. Not because of some preconceived opinions and hate people have for it.

leggo

Deleted User wrote: »

It's amazing how far fans of the show will go to defend it. So, if you aren't a fan of the show and criticise the show then you're just doing it to fit in.

I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. You're making that blanket statement.

However what I did say is that people attacked it with a savage pedantry at times. That's a comment on certain criticisms, not all, I've criticised it myself in this thread sure. It's always funny when people cry, "I've a right to an opinion!" while getting uppity when someone gives a view on their opinion, without realising the irony.

For example people seem to think that because it sets itself in the real world it then loses its right to a dramatic licence, which even The Sopranos and Wire held, and critique certain scenarios of being unrealistic. The problem there comes with people's confusion about context ("It's based in reality so should it not all be 100% accurately depicted?" The answer to that question is, "No, because then it would be a documentary and not a drama,") and not necessarily the show itself. Like it's Aaron Sorkin's fault they can't grasp the dramatic confines of the show when there are millions of other people who get it just fine.

When people get pedantic about a certain issue and it gets put under the microscope to the point the whole debate seems ridiculous, that's when you know someone is reaching for a criticism and then they're just being critical because that's the thing everyone else is doing with this show. It happens: people follow along with a crowd sometimes. That's a thing. That applies to a significant amount, but not all by any means, of 'issues' raised with this show.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. You're making that blanket statement.

However what I did say is that people attacked it with a savage pedantry at times. That's a comment on certain criticisms, not all, I've criticised it myself in this thread sure. It's always funny when people cry, "I've a right to an opinion!" while getting uppity when someone gives a view on their opinion, without realising the irony.

For example people seem to think that because it sets itself in the real world it then loses its right to a dramatic licence, which even The Sopranos and Wire held, and critique certain scenarios of being unrealistic. The problem there comes with people's confusion about context ("It's based in reality so should it not all be 100% accurately depicted?" The answer to that question is, "No, because then it would be a documentary and not a drama,") and not necessarily the show itself. Like it's Aaron Sorkin's fault they can't grasp the dramatic confines of the show when there are millions of other people who get it just fine.

When people get pedantic about a certain issue and it gets put under the microscope to the point the whole debate seems ridiculous, that's when you know someone is reaching for a criticism and then they're just being critical because that's the thing everyone else is doing with this show. It happens: people follow along with a crowd sometimes. That's a thing. That applies to a significant amount, but not all by any means, of 'issues' raised with this show.

The implication in your post was that those who criticised the show were doing so to fit in with the crowd so to speak. You yourself said that people feel obligated to criticies it.

I don't think anyone has criticized the show for not being confined to the real world. All fiction, no matter what the basis has a dramatic license and it's expected of any show. Reading through this thread and I don't recall anyone taking umbrage with that aspect of the show. T

he show is entitled to present a somewhat unrealistic take on a newsroom but the problem with the show and realism comes from how unprofessional everyone working there is. Sorkin set out to make a realistic show set in a newsroom but then decided to populate it with some of the least realistic and unprofessional characters you can imagine. In a comedy it might have worked but here it just falls flat.

If someone has a valid criticism of a show such as this it doesn't make it any less valid if it's shared by others. Yes, there are some issues raised about the show that you can easily forgive and look at as nit picking but it's still an incredibly flawed show and most of the criticisms leveled at the show are valid. It's a show that never quite found it's feet and that's largely down to Sorkin whose taken on too much. The decision to write each episode himself was a huge mistake, the best TV is one where ideas are bounced between people.

PhiloCypher

This thread reminds me of the Prometheus one at times, there too any and all criticism was attributed to either a) unfair comparisons to its forebear Alien/Westwing or b)pedantry by its defenders.

This is a discussion forum we're never gonna agree on everything nor would it be fun if we did, but how about rather then question the motives of anyone critical of the show we actually debate the actual criticisms.

leggo

Don't add 'implications' to my post and then argue with them. You quoted me so just address the words in that post, not words that you'd rather I said because you'd prefer to argue with them. I'm perfectly capable of using the English language: if I wanted to say that everyone who criticised it was doing so to fit in, I'd have said just that. But I didn't. So this is awkward. You could just apologise for reading it wrong initially instead of acting like I made the mistake?

And after saying that you didn't have a go at it for being unrealistic, you then went onto make one such pedantic argument, which kinda makes me feel you're getting mad at my initial post because it touched a nerve. Thanks for making this easier for me.

If The Newsroom showed everyone behaving ethically and professional and exactly as they should in a Newsroom at all times, it would be a documentary, not a fictional TV show. And a boring one at that.

Given that a fictional TV show needs storylines to run, and this particular one is set in a Newsroom, sometimes it is necessary for them to have those storylines take place within a Newsroom. So on paper it's easy to say that, sometimes, people may need to behave in ways that aren't 100% faithful to the conduct usually displayed in a real life Newsroom to further these storylines.

Do you see how small and petty your argument sounds now? That's exactly the kind of pedantry that I'm discussing because it's become a thing to hate-watch this show and people want to join in with that (like they do with the LLS, right here on boards) so create stupid reasons like 'they're acting unprofessionally' to hate it, when they didn't mind McNulty tampering with dead bodies in The Wire or Tony taking Pussy for a romantic boat ride before whacking him in The Sopranos.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

Don't add 'implications' to my post and then argue with them. You quoted me so just address the words in that post, not words that you'd rather I said because you'd prefer to argue with them. I'm perfectly capable of using the English language: if I wanted to say that everyone who criticised it was doing so to fit in, I'd have said just that. But I didn't. So this is awkward. You could just apologise for reading it wrong initially instead of acting like I made the mistake?

And after saying that you didn't have a go at it for being unrealistic, you then went onto make one such pedantic argument, which kinda makes me feel you're getting mad at my initial post because it touched a nerve. Thanks for making this easier for me.

If The Newsroom showed everyone behaving ethically and professional and exactly as they should in a Newsroom at all times, it would be a documentary, not a fictional TV show. And a boring one at that.

Given that a fictional TV show needs storylines to run, and this particular one is set in a Newsroom, sometimes it is necessary for them to have those storylines take place within a Newsroom. So on paper it's easy to say that, sometimes, people may need to behave in ways that aren't 100% faithful to the conduct usually displayed in a real life Newsroom to further these storylines.

Do you see how small and petty your argument sounds now? That's exactly the kind of pedantry that I'm discussing because it's become a thing to hate-watch this show and people want to join in with that (like they do with the LLS, right here on boards) so create stupid reasons like 'they're acting unprofessionally' to hate it, when they didn't mind McNulty tampering with dead bodies in The Wire or Tony taking Pussy for a romantic boat ride before whacking him in The Sopranos.

So there was no implication at all in your original post or that you implied that those who read reviews or message boards are criticizing it because they feel obligated to. Well I guess then you must have meant something else when you wrote "I know people who have great taste in television who love this show, and they don't read reviews or message boards. But people who do seem to feel obligated to criticise it so they're a part of 'the conversation'."

Your post touched no nerves, it's just another in the long line of those who defend the show and write off any criticism. The problem with the characters in the show is that they simply aren't believable. If the show was pitched more as a comedy then we could be more forgiving of the manner in how they are portrayed. Sorkin expects us to believe that these people are the best at what they do yet their conduct never shows this. I'm all for suspension of disbelief but there's only so many times you can forgive poor writer and characterizations. You are trying to hide behind the argument that because it's fiction the characters don't need to be realistic. That's fine, many shows have characters who are completely removed from reality but few serious dramas get away with it.

I also can't see how criticing a how can be seen as small or petty. The writing for the characters in the show is poor, look at Sloane for example. Her character changes from one episode to the next with no rhythm or rhyme to it other than allow Sorkin to create a little bit of story. That's fine in a show where the characters are reset every week but not in one telling series long arcs.

People criticisng the show do watch and criticise other shows. I have many problems with the Sopranoes and some of the characters in the Wire. But the difference between the characters here and in those shows is that the characters are consistent. McNulty tampering with a body may not be the most believable thing but it makes sense for his character at that stage. Also remember that McNulty's messing around was one single character doing stupid things and not indicative of a show whose characters change widely from one week to the next. Look at Breaking Bad, a show which had a number of ridiculously unrealistic moments that beggared belief but in the overall show they made sense and worked. In the Newsroom there's a constant sense that Sorkin isn't quite sure what kind of show he is making. It's an odd frankenstein of comedy and drama only with out enough of either to qualify it as a dramedy. It's a mid afternoon soap opera with better aesthetics and writing.

You can link to all the articles you want but that does not mean that criticism here is less valid. Just because there's some people who take issue with the show and attack does not mean that the rest of us are jumping on some bandwagon

leggo

Obviously when I'm saying "People criticise it because they want to be a part of the conversation", I'm talking about those people in particular and not saying that everyone who criticises it (myself included) is doing the same. I'm talking about the bandwagon-hoppers deliberately trying to nitpick for the sake of it. C'mon man, you really have an issue with context don't you?

But you've obviously taken this personally. And blaming me for you taking a comment aimed at a specific subsection of people personally is kinda like blaming Sorkin for having unrealistic aspects in a fictional TV show based in real life. Proof is kinda in the pudding here... :pac:

leggo

leggo wrote: »

Obviously when I'm saying "People criticise it because they want to be a part of the conversation", I'm talking about those people in particular and not saying that everyone who criticises it (myself included) is doing the same. I'm talking about the bandwagon-hoppers deliberately trying to nitpick for the sake of it. C'mon man, you really have an issue with context don't you?

But you've obviously taken this personally. And blaming me for you taking a comment aimed at a specific subsection of people personally is kinda like blaming Sorkin for having unrealistic aspects in a fictional TV show based in real life. Proof is kinda in the pudding here... :pac:

But who are those people in particular?

And no, there's nothing taken personally here. Boards is a discussion site, I merely attempted to engage in discussion with you but you don't seem interested in doing so. Merely trying to imply that any criticism you don't agree with is to be ignored as it's wrong.

You seem to think that criticism of the characters is nit picking and unfair and that to do so, is to jump on the bandwagon. You know, you might have an argument if the show was played as a sitcom or light hearted comedy where characters reset every week. I wouldn't criticise a show such as 2 and a Half Men or Big Bang Theory for inconsistent characters

But the Newsroom is supposed to be a step above basic sitcom, the show is supposed to be an intelligent, adult drama with a grounding in reality. As such people expect a little consistency from characters. Week in week out and Sorkin changes his characters drastically. There's no sense of reality or sense to it beyond Sorking doing so simply to help with that week's story. Sloane is a perfect example of it, she goes from smartest person in any room to bumbling fool from one week to the next.

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

Week in week out and Sorkin changes his characters drastically. There's no sense of reality or sense to it beyond Sorking doing so simply to help with that week's story. Sloane is a perfect example of it, she goes from smartest person in any room to bumbling fool from one week to the next.

Sorkin isn't the only one who does that. It's ever present in the West wing and the newsroom....but other non sorkin shows play bait and switch with their characters traits. It is possible to be both intelligent and bumbling at the same time. Or both good and evil as is the case with my example.

The internet is going ballistic at the moment because of what happened on last weeks game of thrones. We had a character in Jamie Lannister who was on a "road to redemption" journey for most of last season and who everyone had started to love....do something heinous and people are losing their sh*t over it.

Some people are claiming its out of character but (a) its not in my opinion when you examine the character as a whole and (b) the characters are their to service the story...not the other way around.

If you have written a funny scene or a funny line....somebody has to deliver it. And having only one comedic character in the cast gets predictable. It often works better if all the characters are capable of it so you can share it around and not end up with one comedy relief caricature.

Sloane is written kind of ditsy so it's not out of character when she acts the fool. That's part of her character.

Skerries

I liked the The Newsroom but my biggest bug bear with Sorkin is he doesn't know what to do with female characters.
In the West Wing he kept introducing these female characters but they were then dropped or gone by the end of the season and the ones that are there are these strong almost male characters anyway.

leggo

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to think that...

Stop using these words. You quoted my post, you saw exactly what I think. If you're saying words that are different than the words you're quoting, I'm not thinking them. It's not a conversation if you're making up arguments and disagreeing with them. That's just you talking to yourself in public pal. Stop. Seek help.

evilivor

Skerries wrote: »

I liked the The Newsroom but my biggest bug bear with Sorkin is he doesn't know what to do with female characters.
In the West Wing he kept introducing these female characters but they were then dropped or gone by the end of the season and the ones that are there are these strong almost male characters anyway.

What do you mean by that?

leggo

leggo wrote: »

Stop using these words. You quoted my post, you saw exactly what I think. If you're saying words that are different than the words you're quoting, I'm not thinking them. It's not a conversation if you're making up arguments and disagreeing with them. That's just you talking to yourself in public pal. Stop. Seek help.

So then what exactly are the criticism that are petty and nitpicking? From your posts most would assume that criticism of the characters for varying wildly from one week to the next is petty and small criticism.

Kirby wrote: »

Sorkin isn't the only one who does that. It's ever present in the West wing and the newsroom....but other non sorkin shows play bait and switch with their characters traits. It is possible to be both intelligent and bumbling at the same time. Or both good and evil as is the case with my example.

The internet is going ballistic at the moment because of what happened on last weeks game of thrones. We had a character in Jamie Lannister who was on a "road to redemption" journey for most of last season and who everyone had started to love....do something heinous and people are losing their sh*t over it.

Some people are claiming its out of character but (a) its not in my opinion when you examine the character as a whole and (b) the characters are their to service the story...not the other way around.

If you have written a funny scene or a funny line....somebody has to deliver it. And having only one comedic character in the cast gets predictable. It often works better if all the characters are capable of it so you can share it around and not end up with one comedy relief caricature.

Sloane is written kind of ditsy so it's not out of character when she acts the fool. That's part of her character.

The difference is that in the Newsroom characters change so often to suit the story that there's no consistency to them. Breaking Bad drastically changed it's characters but there was an evolution to it, Walter did suddenly become someone completely different on week simply to serve the cheap gags or plot that week.

I don't watch Game of Thrones so can't comment on the example given. I would imagine that the character in question has been somewhat consistent throughout the shows run and his actions aren't suddenly drastically different from what they were before.

Characters need to evolve and change, it happens in all TV shows but in the Newsroom they change on a whim. It's all well and good to say that we have a funny line to be deliver but if it's completely out of character for a certain character do say or do something then you find someone else to deliver it. You don't alter the character simply to further the plot or a gag and then revert back to the norm later.

dogsears

Anyone know when the last season is due to kick off in US?

civis_liberalis

"Fall 2014". Nothing more specific than that, other than the fact that it will be 6 episode season.

dogsears

The whole think smacks of a lack of enthusiasm really - fewer episodes, definitely last season, uncertain as to when to be broadcast, and I'd bet Sorkin is distracted by other projects. Hard to understand why they greenlighted the last season at all.

don ramo

its funny that there is a good show in there, otherwise i wouldnt continue to watch, but there is some amount of completely unnecessary stuff thrown in there for what really seems like for the sake of it, it tries and fails to be some kind of highbrow show at times, sorkin just seems to be trying to hard,