The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

People pushed away from the Newsroom because it was a confused mess that couldn't decide if it was a generic sitcom or adult drama. It tried to be the best of both worlds but failed miserably.

leggo

errlloyd wrote: »

Is that you Aaron Sorkin?

Remember when you used to say something nice about someone then people would be like, "Oh that must be the person he's talking about?" That was gas. In 2005...

leggo

Deleted User wrote: »

People pushed away from the Newsroom because it was a confused mess that couldn't decide if it was a generic sitcom or adult drama. It tried to be the best of both worlds but failed miserably.

As opposed to this series that's getting near-unanimous praise...which featured, in the latest episode, Don & Sloane trying to trick each other about whether they were in a relationship or not, spliced with one of the main characters going on the run from the FBI.

How's the above different from what you described? And yet nobody is pushing away now. Hmmm...

errlloyd

leggo wrote: »

Remember when you used to say something nice about someone then people would be like, "Oh that must be the person he's talking about?" That was gas. In 2005...

It was actually the style of your sorkinesque monologue which prompted me to post that. I meant it complimentary really.

IvaBigWun

lertsnim wrote: »

I'll leave it so.

Just because there's some relationship stuff? :The two main leads got engaged at the end of season 2, what did you think the writers were going to do with them?

You're missing out on some amazing TV if you do decide to give it a miss.

leggo

errlloyd wrote: »

It was actually the style of your sorkinesque monologue which prompted me to post that. I meant it complimentary really.

Fair enough, I was cranky and sick last night when I replied.

ixoy

leggo wrote: »

Every year people hated on The Newsroom because that was the thing to do (didn't it invent - or at least make mainstream - the term 'hate-watching'?), but kept watching and eventually came around by the end of each series.

Actually people generally had perfectly valid arguments as to why they didn't like it. And to say it's because they resented being challenged with opposing views is sort of insulting. In fact, if you remember the thread here, what most people complained about were the "character" moments and what most people wanted more of were the journalistic insights and story lines. That's what we did seek out, contrary to what you're implying - we actually wanted those debates, those challenges but too often felt that comedic asides and tepid character moments were getting in the way of that.

complaints. If we didn't like it all this time anyway, what's the problem? Only, turns out, we did. We didn't deserve The Newsroom.

Didn't deserve? That's a bit much - it's not as if Sorkin has created a masterpiece and the masses are just unable to see its genius. It's a flawed show that has been gradually improving with each season as he works out its kinks and, if it kept up with the level displayed this season so far, it will indeed be a shame but it looks like Sorkin may have fixed some of the problems too late. Maybe the show deserves better now but we possibly deserved better in its early days.

FortuneChip

This show is a mess, and I love it.
Two cracking episodes so far.

leggo

ixoy wrote: »

Actually people generally had perfectly valid arguments as to why they didn't like it. And to say it's because they resented being challenged with opposing views is sort of insulting. In fact, if you remember the thread here, what most people complained about were the "character" moments and what most people wanted more of were the journalistic insights and story lines. That's what we did seek out, contrary to what you're implying - we actually wanted those debates, those challenges but too often felt that comedic asides and tepid character moments were getting in the way of that.

That's not quite what I said. I said that people criticised it for the show they thought it should be rather than the show it actually is, i.e. what the makers wanted it to be. For example, I read a dissection of the last episode that was almost entirely based around Sorkin's contempt towards the Internet. They didn't like his stance, therefore, the episode was crap. That's a person who watches TV to feel validated.

And what is it that people are now commenting on? Don and Sloan. So is he really wrong for focusing on character bits? People who slate character-based shows in favour of more plot don't realise that strong characters drive good plots. The plot is nothing unless you're invested, unless you like and dislike each of the main players. I haven't read people saying that they're apathetic towards Will, Mackenzie, Don, Sloane etc*. That's investment (whereas, again, people who watch TV to feel validated think the writers don't want you to dislike certain core characters - which is hardly ever the case).

ixoy

leggo wrote: »

For example, I read a dissection of the last episode that was almost entirely based around Sorkin's contempt towards the Internet. They didn't like his stance, therefore, the episode was crap. That's a person who watches TV to feel validated.

I think that's also a little bit because the show stresses how ACN goes for fair balanced news and then Sorkin has his little soapbox moments like that which don't really seem very balanced.

I haven't read people saying that they're apathetic towards Will, Mackenzie, Don, Sloane etc*. That's investment (whereas, again, people who watch TV to feel validated think the writers don't want you to dislike certain core characters - which is hardly ever the case).

Well plenty of people don't particularly like Mackenzie. Okay, so they have an opinion on her (so yes, they're not apathetic) but if it's that she annoys them then that's not a positive thing. Look above and you'll see a poster asking about the love triangle - they disliked it so much that they're nervous about investing any time in the third season. That's not the investment you want - people feeling such dislike about character arcs that it makes them turn off the show.
Don and Sloane, for what it's worth, are the best character couple on the show but we've had to sit through others that haven't worked well and this is one of the reasons that there's not going to be a fourth season (which I would have watched if there was because, on the balance of it for me, the show has definitely more strengths than weaknesses. But not enough people agree).

golfball37

Sloan is savage hot but the acting leaves an awful lot to be desired imo. The monologues with Don in the restaurant about the Buffet were almost of Fair City standard.

IvaBigWun

golfball37 wrote: »

Sloan is savage hot but the acting leaves an awful lot to be desired imo. The monologues with Don in the restaurant about the Buffet were almost of Fair City standard.

Who cares

FlyingIrishMan

Don is my new favorite character.

The Black Oil

Third episode was pretty good. Kept the main story going. Some of relationship stuff was pushed back into the centre a little more here, but not distractingly so. The HR guy seems like a careerist of sorts. I knew the whistleblower was going to be a woman. The reliable Clea DuVall. I did like exchange with the national security attorney bloke, which seemed suitably barbed, though you kinda always knew something was going to fall on Will. Crowdfunded news? I'll pass. Corporate ain't no great shakes, mind.

wp_rathead

Wasn't as good an episode as 2 but still very good.
The interview with the Climatologist was hilarous

fisgon

Latest ep. still very enjoyable, though Sorkin's tendency to overwrite dialogue is obvious here. He just needs to learn to rein in his tendency to show off, to be the cleverest kid in the class.

Also, agree with the comments on Olivia Munn's physical attributes, but disagree completely on denigration of her acting ability. I think she is a really great comic actress, and plays her role to perfection. Everything is with a straight face, which makes it more hilarious. If anything, Sloan is just not in it enough, and her role is probably underwritten, she has a lot of unused potential.

squonk

This latest episode was OK. Nothing stunning or anything but definitely better than most things in the first two seasons so that's still good. I love Sloane and Don. They're a great pairing and I think Olivia Munn is playing the character really well.

the only thing that was a bit hamfisted was the Grace Gummer scene where she was getting hounded over click-bait journalism. 20 minutes later ACN is about to be turned into a crowdsourced news outlet. I'd have prefered that be left a week or two to develope.

Penn

fisgon wrote: »

Everything is with a straight face, which makes it more hilarious.

That's my major problem with her acting. Everything is with a straight face. Humour is with a straight face. Anger is with a straight face. Sadness is with a straight face. Happiness is with a straight face. She completely underacts. Pretty good comic timing, but just completely expressionless most of the time.

I used to have the opposite criticism of Mac, who in the first season was horrible for overacting, but she's toned it down a lot and I've enjoyed her performance a lot more.

Either way, another good episode I thought. Slowed things down a bit, but probably for the best to prevent every episode being too rushed and dramatic.

syklops

Sorry to be a moaning michael but can we refrain from posting large pics of Olivia Munn in favour of links to the pictures. Some of them are borderline NSFW and I like to read some of the comments in work but get uncomfortable having her boobs displayed across my screen. I don't need someone making a comment about what I appear to be viewing.

Not complaining about pics of her in general, just can we link to them instead? That or I can't read this thread in work which would be annoying.

IvaBigWun

syklops wrote: »

Sorry to be a moaning michael but can we refrain from posting large pics of Olivia Munn in favour of links to the pictures. Some of them are borderline NSFW and I like to read some of the comments in work

Perhaps you should be, oh I dont know, doing some work in work?

I will tone down the amount of flesh on show with her and make them smaller than the last one, but I wont be linking to them. A decent compromise?

The TV forum is one of the few subforums on here that I like that also allows pictures. It adds to the banter in my humble opinion. To me "NSFW" means a lot more on show than has been seen here. God knows Olivia Munn has other pictures out there that proves this :cool:

But you really shouldnt be getting a mini soapbox out considering you're reading this thread on your bosses time.

leggo

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Perhaps you should be, oh I dont know, doing some work in work?

I will tone down the amount of flesh on show with her and make them smaller than the last one, but I wont be linking to them. A decent compromise?

The TV forum is one of the few subforums on here that I like that also allows pictures. It adds to the banter in my humble opinion. To me "NSFW" means a lot more on show than has been seen here. God knows Olivia Munn has other pictures out there that proves this :cool:

But you really shouldnt be getting a mini soapbox out considering you're reading this thread on your bosses time.

Why are you having a go at him? It was a reasonable request. Half of boards probably log on in work (why do you think the phrase NSFW exists?) And Google exists if people want to creep on her. This is a thread for discussing The Newsroom. We all know what she looks like, so adding another picture adds literally nothing to the discussion. Fair enough if it suited everyone, but someone asked you a reasonable question politely and you got smart for no reason. Get over yourself.

IvaBigWun

leggo wrote: »

Why are you having a go at him? It was a reasonable request. Half of boards probably log on in work (why do you think the phrase NSFW exists?) And Google exists if people want to creep on her. This is a thread for discussing The Newsroom. We all know what she looks like, so adding another picture adds literally nothing to the discussion. Fair enough if it suited everyone, but someone asked you a reasonable question politely and you got smart for no reason. Get over yourself.

Lol.

You think me saying

A decent compromise?

is me having a go at someone? Seriously?

"NSFW" to me, as far as bold pictures go, means nipples or more. It has been the rule of thumb for pictures on the net for years.

Indeed:

Wiki


Typically, the NSFW tag is used in e-mail, videos, and on interactive discussion areas (such as Internet forums, blogs, or community websites) to mark URLs or hyperlinks which contain material such as nudity, pornography or profanity, which the viewer may not want to be seen accessing in a public or formal setting such as in a workplace.

The pictures showed neither "nudity, pornography or profanity". If this were a UK or even American TV forum this wouldnt be a point of discussion. The problem in Ireland with pictures that show a woman's beauty is that, whether we like to admit it or not, a lot of people's views on flesh are still from the Stone Age.

Or in this case: when people in Ireland actually gave a fúck what the catholic church had to say.

Regarding Olivia Munn: it is my belief that she was initially cast in the show because of her looks, Sorkin always puts in some eye candy into his small screen titles. Her looks also ties in with her character as she's had to fight off some "bimbo" assumptions in earlier seasons.

In this day and age you have to laugh at people still demanding that pictures not be used in forum threads because it suits their agenda in work. Its 2014 FFS! You have a mini computer in your pocket that can be used at any stage of the day to read these things. On the train, Luas, bus, on the toilet, in a long queue or wherever.

Bottom line: in the workplace, do some feckin' work. Because either you're bored with your job (get a new one) or your boss will catch you dossing at some stage.

It doesnt take a picture of a good looking woman for that to happen.

leggo

I try not to use this smiley that much, but seriously, you've earned it:

:rolleyes:

Did you actually bring in the Catholic Church as justification for posting unwanted pics? Everyone here can Google images of her just fine. Someone asked you politely could you stop so they could read in work (I don't know if you work...but this is really common on Internet message boards, how are you not familiar with this?) Now you're freaking out about it now making long, over-dramatic posts.

Why do you want to post them so much anyway that you would argue when asked to stop? Do you just like getting the thanks or something? It's weird that you care this much man.

squonk

Yup. Like it or not there is office etiquette. It's surprising sometimes what can be deemed as offensive. Our monitors aren't small these days either so whatever you've got on screen you have to assume that someone can see/read it. People logging onto boards may also be doing so during their lunch breaks. It doesn't have to be their bosses time. I think the request to tone down the pics was a reasonably one. I certainly agreed with it and could identify with where that poster was coming from.

The way the cookie crumbles for me is like this. At home: Forum Pics of Olivia Munn already posted - OK. Bit OTT but sure no harm. At Work: Major NO NO! Too big, neccesitates having to quickly gloss over posts. Not appropriate at all.

The Black Oil

fisgon wrote: »

Latest ep. still very enjoyable, though Sorkin's tendency to overwrite dialogue is obvious here.

It's certainly too noticeable in this show. It's like he can't let a pocket of air between sentences. That's always been the Sorkin way, but it does get repetitive.

Have you read that report?
No yet. I was on a date last night. We had cookies.
You mean sex?
No...
Yourecrumbling
Chocolatechipsomesay
Illmakeanewsmanoutofyouyet

syklops

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Perhaps you should be, oh I dont know, doing some work in work?

I posted that message at 13:17. I was on my lunch.

Im sorry if I offended you in some way by my request. Thats fine, keep posting as you were before, I will simply add you to my block list. No hassle.

LionelNashe

Just some speculation about Neil fleeing to Venezuela, not really a spoiler:

I wonder if the FBI guy was being honest about Neil flying to Venezuela. It strikes me as a bit odd that he would make that journey off-screen, and we would just hear about it second-hand from the FBI guy. Maybe he's actually being held in a cell somewhere.

I do think that the posting of the pics in this thread and others such as the Community one are unnecessary and somewhat sleazy. There's absolutely no need for them and it just lowers the tone and adds nothing to the discussion.

IvaBigWun

Deleted User wrote: »

I do think that the posting of the pics in this thread and others such as the Community one are unnecessary and somewhat sleazy. There's absolutely no need for them and it just lowers the tone and adds nothing to the discussion.

As cheerful as ever I see Darko. You sound like Father Paul Stone from Ted






Look lads, here's the craic: there's nothing on the Charter about putting up pics of beautiful women who star in the shows. Aren't the majority of female viewers lusting over That Guy in The Fall? Admittedly they dont put up pictures of him but they could if they so wished.


Re: pics of Alison Brie in the Community thread? Seriously? Half of the banter on there revolved around pics of her and the others. The thread would be 3 pages long without it :pac:


To get back to the point about the catholic church Leggo, what I meant is they have completely fúcked up what is and isnt acceptable in this country as to what is and isnt agreeable as far as flesh being shown.

It is ludicrous that this conversation is even happening over a picture of a woman with all her clothes on!

I do however think that if the majority want pictures of girls looking (tastefully) very well indeed gone from this forum, then it should be so. But only if it is the lions share of people.

So maybe a poll? To me more people want the harmless pics than dont but I could be wrong.

leggo

Or we could not continue to make this thread about you, you just agree to now multiple requests, and we discuss The Newsroom instead?

errlloyd

LionelNashe wrote: »

Just some speculation about Neil fleeing to Venezuela, not really a spoiler:

I wonder if the FBI guy was being honest about Neil flying to Venezuela. It strikes me as a bit odd that he would make that journey off-screen, and we would just hear about it second-hand from the FBI guy. Maybe he's actually being held in a cell somewhere.

I am pretty sure you posted the spoiler in plain font, and posted a theory in spoiler tags there.

Not that it should be an issue really.

squonk

IvaBigWun wrote: »

So maybe a poll? To me more people want the harmless pics than dont but I could be wrong.

Ah christ! Stop now please! Nobody has any serious problem with the Olivia Munn pics though seeing as we all have Google I think we're well able to find pics of the lady in question ourselves if we so desire though thanks for going the extra mile. The nub of the issue here is that many, including myself, don't want to be bombarded with pics like that where we're viewing the forum in a public setting. Stop making such a big deal out of this and move on.

Another strong episode this week, albeit one that was more of an episode to set the pieces up for the remaining ones. Have to say though, this is the first installment in a while where that Sorkin style of line delivery particualrly bothered me; At the beginning of the episode while the F.B.I. were raiding the newsroom and there was a bit of back and forth between Mac and her F.B.I. friend regarding the wedding invite, with Will throwing in a line every now and then also, God I just wanted it to end immediately.

I loved the E.P.A. report segment and how it gripped everyone in the newsroom and grabbed their attention; The sudden realisation of 'Never mind politics, never mind treason or espionage, never mind corporate takeovers and leveraged buyouts, none of it will matter because Mother Earth has finally had enough of our shít', I thought it was an unforeseen, powerful few moments.

Does anyone find Jim's journalist girlfriend (think her name is Hallie) quite an unlikeable character? Not just in this episode, but from when she was first introduced back when Jim met her during the presidential primaries? Maybe that's the point and how she was written, but she seems like no craic at all and is always on edge. Jim must be a bit of a masochist! I know they were obviously angling at that this week, but I can her playing a part in ACN's potential downfall...

And that's where I currently see this going; Fairly late in the game, they've just introduced this B.J. Novak mogul character who is apparently the saviour of ACN and wants to turn ACN into the very opposite of what it strives to be. To add to this, it now suddenly appears that Will is not as invincible in the eyes of the F.B.I. as he himself or us the viewers previously believed. While I don't think this show will end on an overall downbeat tone, I do think there is going to be plenty more drama, speed ramps and even the odd sacrificial lamb or two before this story comes to a lighter conclusion. Getting back to Jim's girlfriend Hallie, I see her as a probable source of such drama considering her new 'clickbait' job and her knowledge of things from inside ACN's closet of skeletons. She says that she doesn't have an ax to grind with ACN, but I see something maybe changing that in the next episode.

The addition of the new H.R. guy to stifle Dan and Sloan's relationship is a bit 'What's the point?' to me. There are currently enough antagonistic characters/storylines in the show including the F.B.I. and the Lancel twins without introducing 'textbook corporate douche #537' to ruin my enjoyment of the Sloan and Dan hour!

3 down, 3 to go and then this genuinely good show is gone forever. Seems like it was barely even here.

IvaBigWun

squonk wrote: »

The nub of the issue here is that many, including myself, don't want to be bombarded with pics like that where we're viewing the forum in a public setting. Stop making such a big deal out of this and move on.

I wouldnt say "many", more like "a few" and I would say the majority still want the pictures.

I will be continuing to post images of her in this thread, so feel free to put me on ignore and continue reading this forum on your bosses' time.

Thanks

leggo

IvaBigWun wrote: »

I wouldnt say "many", more like "a few" and I would say the majority still want the pictures.

I will be continuing to post images of her in this thread, so feel free to put me on ignore and continue reading this forum on your bosses' time.

Thanks

Christ, you've gone back to this again?!? Is this your place in the world where you try and grab attention or something?

Has one person posted defending you yet?

I will take you up on that ignore option.

Mr E

Let's stick to discussing the show, please. This is not the place to post pics of scantily clad actresses (and I'd say the same about the Community thread going forward too...)

evilivor

stankratz wrote: »

Does anyone find Jim's journalist girlfriend (think her name is Hallie) quite an unlikeable character? Not just in this episode, but from when she was first introduced back when Jim met her during the presidential primaries? Maybe that's the point and how she was written, but she seems like no craic at all and is always on edge.

She also seems to have, unfortunately, inherited her acting skills up from her father's side of the family…

evilivor

evilivor wrote: »

She also seems to have, unfortunately, inherited her acting skills up from her father's side of the family…

Oh...just googled!

LionelNashe

errlloyd wrote: »

I am pretty sure you posted the spoiler in plain font, and posted a theory in spoiler tags there.

Not that it should be an issue really.

What I posted in plain text wasn't a spoiler, because it has already aired.
I did post a theory in spoiler tags. If I think I've spotted an upcoming surprise/twist in the story, I'm not going to blab it out there and spoil it, in case it's true.

evilivor

evilivor wrote: »

She also seems to have, unfortunately, inherited her acting skills up from her father's side of the family…

Oh, Meryl Streep is her mama?? Fúck sake Meryl, you need to slap that child of yours! :pac:

golfball37

stankratz wrote: »

Oh, Meryl Streep is her mama?? Fúck sake Meryl, you need to slap that child of yours! :pac:

Wow- She's very like her alright now that you say it.

It took me two years and 4 episodes to realise the show would just be better off without Macenzie's character. What purpose does she serve? The Wedding banter was awfully cringeworthy.

JohnDaniels

Mackenzie kissing Will at the end as he is carted away by the DOJ knowing now he doesn't actually know who the source is felt for me like one of the cringiest moments of TV ever.

syklops

golfball37 wrote: »

Wow- She's very like her alright now that you say it.

It took me two years and 4 episodes to realise the show would just be better off without Macenzie's character. What purpose does she serve? The Wedding banter was awfully cringeworthy.

She was the catalyst for Newsnight 2.0. I agree she is annoying at times. The wedding stuff is unnecessary though.

dogsears

For me the McKenzie problem was never the character as much as the casting. Emily Mortimer is great in loads of things, but so awfully miscast here - that gobbledygook about her really being an American despite how she sounds seemed like it was just cover (and weak cover at that) for the fact that she can't do an American accent for ****e. All those words Sorkin wrote for her might have been OK in an accent suited to the surroundings but what would have been zingers out of, say, CJ Cregg, came out all strained and unnatural from McKenzie/Mortimer. Even with Lord John Marbury in TWW he wrote him like a toff brit, whereas she's supposed to be believable as a yank with that accent. She was just so incongruous and out of place there. After the casting, nothing was ever going to be right with McKenzie.

JohnDaniels

Never had a problem with Mortimer as McKenzie. Maybe in the beginning but I grew to really warm to her. I've enjoyed the Newsroom for the light entertainment popcorn show that it is even though I originally fell into it because of the more weighty show that it likes to masquerade as at times. The mix though has made it enjoyable. Sorkin is just horribly off key at times though verning far too deeply into emotional drama with overwrought sentimentality that would make some soap operas blush.

fisgon

So the Sloane/Don thing was a complete non-event. The HR guy was just playing with them? A complete red herring. It's stuff like this that annoys people who want to like Sorkin's shows but keep being thrown off course by this kind of randomness.

A mixed bag, this ep, some clever stuff, some clever clever stuff, some stupid stuff. This debate between old and new media is interesting, but a little overplayed maybe.

mewso

Jesus the "Let's get married now" cliche. Sometimes Sorkin just cannot resist these things. Hey do you think Maggie and Jim will get together before the end? Who knows?

errlloyd

mewso wrote: »

Jesus the "Let's get married now" cliche. Sometimes Sorkin just cannot resist these things. Hey do you think Maggie and Jim will get together before the end? Who knows?

I thought (still think) there was (is) going to be a legally important reason why that was relevant.

JohnDaniels

errlloyd wrote: »

I thought (still think) there was (is) going to be a legally important reason why that was relevant.

Em, they explicity said this during the episode?

dogsears

I've just seen the whole of Ep 4. I see some were cribbing about the wedding stuff - I have to be honest, I'm an unabashed Sorkinophile and Ave Maria is so totally all about The West Wing and the scene in the first season when Josh is stressing about his sister and the Ave Maria comes on and he says that Schubert was quite mad you know - a scene I always loved and quite obviously so did Sorkin and this was his grand reprise of that (while he still could) - and for that I loved it.