The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Heraldoffreeent

dogsears wrote: »

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.

There's a few things that have made their way over from the West wing, the makey uppy failed African state of Kundu being another.

squonk

While I watched this episode I thought it was the best episode of the entire show so far. Well paced and tense at times, it had drama and comedy and angst all wrapped up in a well executed box, or so I thought. Not having seen TWW I really liked the Ave Maria piece and how well it fitted into the overal episode. Two things really grated though during the episode. The first, when Will & Mac are in bed and Will's phone rang. Mca's dialog at that point was SO bad... "Is it Charlie... Is it Rebecca... Is it Charlie... Is it Rebecca..." STFU woman! Very poorly executed! How it could have been filmed, checked and not filmed again once Sorkin realised it didn't owrk I@ll never know. Also, Charlie's rant at the new media guy ending with something like "I don't like him. We're enemies now!". All that was needed was "Mom, the new media guy is a dufus and I hate him. I just do!". We've Charlie built up as a hardened old news type who's canny and sharp yet we get him uttering dialog straight out of a moody 15 year old's mouth who doesn't want to go to summer camp!

Although it was still a great episode, comeing away and thinking about it started to show some cracks. Sloane getting the bait and switch from Todd. Since Charlie pointed out the issue with the food, I'd have thought Slaone should have picked up on that. She's a smart lady and is portrayed as such. She's also well connected and knows her business so it seems very unlikely and strange that something like that would have been brushed off by her.

The HR guy... seriusly... what a waste of film and screen time!

In the end it's so frustrating. There's genuine brilliance in there but it just gets sidelined by the silly details.

errlloyd

[quote="squonk;93273290"We've Charlie built up as a hardened old news type who's canny and sharp yet we get him uttering dialog straight out of a moody 15 year old's mouth who doesn't want to go to summer camp!

Although it was still a great episode, comeing away and thinking about it started to show some cracks. Sloane getting the bait and switch from Todd. Since Charlie pointed out the issue with the food, I'd have thought Slaone should have picked up on that. She's a smart lady and is portrayed as such. She's also well connected and knows her business so it seems very unlikely and strange that something like that would have been brushed off by her.
[/quote]

I actually always think Charlie has been quite childish and petulant. Even after the meeting with Slone his dialogue was childish. So I thought that was in character.

Similarly I also think Slone has no actual cop on. She's very good at her thing, markets and economics. But she's niave about the world.

I'm not saying your perspective is wrong. I just find it interesting we have such different perspectives of the characters.

squonk

I'm not disagreeing with you Errlloyd. That's a good take. The sloane incident was subtle and I've seen over the years that very intelligent people can often have no cop on really. I remember eading a quote years ago saying "There are a lot of very intelligent people in MENSA with no common sense whatsoever". I can see Cloane falling into that category alright.

I also don't necessarily agree with you about Charlie but it's usually more subtly handeled, "I don't like him. We're enemies now!" is laying it on a bit thick though. Actually I'd say I disrespected many 15 year olds with my comment. I'd say it's more 5 year old dialogue territory really.

Hyzepher

"I don't like him. We're enemies now!".

That actually wasn't the exact quote, now was it.

squonk

Hyzepher wrote: »

That actually wasn't the exact quote, now was it.

I think it was the gist. I honestly can't remember and why nitpick? Perhaps you could have posted the original quote to elucidate us? It's the quote bar some other inane babbling.

SherlockWatson

squonk wrote: »

I think it was the gist. I honestly can't remember and why nitpick? Perhaps you could have posted the original quote to elucidate us? It's the quote bar some other inane babbling.

It was something like "We are sworn enemies now, he and I"

It was OTT as Charlie has been since the start, always prone to outbursts and in this case because he is a seasoned producer who is being patronized by a guy he obviously doesn't like nor respect.

It's you who is the one nitpicking tbh.

The Black Oil

I kinda liked it, though I didn't care a lot for the wedding (Ave Maria's another matter, though), or shades of Jim/Maggie revisited.

Kirby

The line made me laugh. That was the point of it and it succeeded. Let's not over analyse it.

Machismo Fan

Charlie's always been my favourite character on the show. Great mix of wise and crazy. Plus Sam Waterston is awesome.

steve_r

Thought I'd weigh in on this weeks ep:

I still think the overall storyline is very interesting, and the journalistic dilemmas they face regarding the leaking of info that could have very serious consequences. That said, I felt the ending was corny, and took away from the good work done before.

To pick up on the point about Mackenzie, I don't think her character is well written (similar to Sam now). That makes it very hard for the actor, and I don't think she's a good fit for the role in the first place, even though I do see why Sorkin would like her. CJ in TWW had a much more grounded character who only made the big speeches where necessary so in some ways that's an easier role to play.

The takeover is still stupid, and seems like a really forced way to bash new media. Jim relationship was also used to make that point, and I felt the argument was unfair and unbalanced.

This isn't me hating on the show btw. I like it, and its certainly interesting, I just wish it grabbed me as much as TWW.

The Pooka

Oh man; thought the show had hugely improved earlier in the season, but with that most recent episode it's well and truly sh*t the bed

h2005

Disappointed with that episode. Weakest episode this series.

syklops

ErrLLoyd wrote:

Similarly I also think Slone has no actual cop on. She's very good at her thing, markets and economics. But she's niave about the world.

She has admitted as much at least once if not more than that in the show.

gavmcg92

h2005 wrote:

Disappointed with that episode. Weakest episode this series.

Completely agree. Very poor episode. Sort of got the impression that they realised that and tried to save it with Charlie's passing. Even that didn't really help. Very very poor.

Seifer

Dunno what episode you guys were watching...

The scenes with Will's father were brilliant; re-watched them all after the reveal and the writing is fantastically clever.

Don in the field was a nice little thought exercise on trial by internet, Sloan's evisceration of the app guy very entertaining and Jim and Maggie's efforts to get on the plane were great because you knew Snowden wasn't going to be on it.

Penn

Yeah I enjoyed the episode a lot. Probably the lack of Will for most of the episode might have knocked it down a bit, but Don's scenes were fantastic imo, Sloane's takedown of the ACNgage guy was great and the bits of Will we got were brilliant. Jim and Maggie was weak for the most part but at least their story is nearly fully resolved now.

KerranJast

Seifer wrote: »

Don in the field was a nice little thought exercise on trial by internet

It ironic given how today the Internet lost it's **** at Sorkin for even touching that storyline with the AVClub in particular going completing so far up its own arse that it can't even reference the actual presented plotline correctly.

FlyingIrishMan

I thought it was another great episode, the Don sections in this episode were brilliant and one of the more interesting topics brought up. I usually like the AVClub but they royally fcked up the review for this episode spending the majority of the review talking about people's right to accuse someone of rape and missing the point completely.

JohnDaniels

When Maggie said 'you know where we are going'. Was I the only one that thought Jim was about to join the mile high club?

Weak episode overall. I hated the way Charlie went out.

squonk

It was a bit meh. I hadn't twigged that Will's cell mate was his father. In fairness to the guy he emoted quite a bit about Will that is along the lines of what I think about the character.

Sloane's takedown of the ACNGage guy was entertaining but I was left wondering what the pont was ereally. It's laregely like she wanted to quit while making a big statement at the same time. It was all a bit like playground squabbling. I just don't buy that you buy a cable network this month and completely revamp its output within a couple of weeks. I definitely thought Jim was getting the Mile High Club treatment. Waht a tease!

Charlie's death was just cheap. Last week we had the Will/Mac snap wedding with great gravitas and import. This week, we had Charlie keel over for a very dramatic ending. The episode would have been a bit of a filler without it but filler is fine at times and needed. In this case we got some nice background on Will. If he wanted to kill off Charlie then it would have been better at the end of Season 2 so we could see the aftermath and how each character adjusts. I thought it was just cheap drama whoring really.

I guess I'm still pretty positive about this show. It's improved a lot and is, for its current faults, far better than Season 1 and 2.

I liked how they handled the Snowden incident though. In earlier seasons where news broke and they dropped everything to follow a story from beginning to end was just terrible. I liked how in this case Snowden was a catalyst for the drama but not really part of it. That's how they should have played earlier seasons.

Hyzepher

Initially I thought Will's cellmate was a plant to try and get the name of the informer. It was a twist that he was imaginary.

Charlie looked like he was conflicted between reporting news and protecting his staff. On one hand he loathes the new format of trash news but on the other he's forced to comply to ensure jobs are saved - it was played very well.

The whole episode was to reinforce the idea that news needs to be relevant, unbiased and protective. All the storylines reflected this.

The ACNgage and rape stories were mirrors of each other - questioning the motivations for wanting certain news/facts/hearsay to be aired. With Sloane and Don arguing the case against knee-jerk journalism

CastorTroy

Of my 3 guesses of what would happen I got 1 right.

When Will's cellmate mentioned the plan that will said he didn't tell him, I knew he was imaginary.

I thought Jim was joining the Mile High Club.

I thought everyone would walk out with Sloane and Mack.

I understand Charlie's death. Was nearly there last week whne he was getting worked up, but this pushed him over the edge

S.M.B.

I hated this episode and I'd share some of the views that the AV Club review brought up? What exactly am I/them missing?

I had been really enjoying this season but I hated this weeks episode. It lost me early on in its run time so every little misstep was amplified for me.

The Pooka

S.M.B. wrote: »

I hated this episode and I'd share some of the views that the AV Club review brought up? What exactly am I/them missing?

I had been really enjoying this season but I hated this weeks episode. It lost me early on in its run time so every little misstep was amplified for me.

Yeah, I thought the rape subplot was pretty spectacularly tone-deaf - would maybe have been *slightly* more palatable if they'd left it after the dorm room discussion with both sides laid out, but for Don to then make the decision he thought was best for the girl was the nail in the coffin there. Throw in the imaginary dad scenes being uber on-the-nose and the ending with Charlie just leaving a bad taste in the mouth... I can't even describe it properly, but the whole episode just felt really, really 'off'. Not what you want with only one week left!

S.M.B.

Yeah, I've read various arguments trying to defend the plot ranging from it's just two opposing viewpoints, neither of which reflect Sorkins stance to the story isn't about rape at all, it's about old media versus new media.

I've yet to read one that I'm comfortable with.

But there were so many other moments which I found offensive.

The male Russian who decided to rinse Jim. WTF?

ixoy

Also felt it was the weakest of the season. The Jim / Maggie plot was pointless and boring - it showcased to me the show's weakest element: The soap opera relationships. Even worse it's the least interesting relationship.

Will's story line was fairly decent, although his dad does have a point about them all being a bit smug..

Sloane's piece was fairly good but again it really felt like Sorkin was once more having an OTT rant about the Internet. Didn't help he picked a stereotypical slimy IT guy - a cheap means of not having to actually debate the issue.

I did like Don's storyline (and haven't read any of the controversy). I did like how he tried to discuss the concept of what she was doing (which is a separate thing to the actualities of her case).

Charlie's death was not only obvious in this episode but also very very cheap. Bump off a character (death off screen), play some music over it, have a character be told to the credits. Sorkin can do better (and did a better piece in 'The West Wing').

Hope the last episode makes up for it but most likely we're just going to see them all quit ACN and do something like forming their own station whilst treating us to an extra helping of soap opera moments via funerals and relationships.

Foxtrol

S.M.B. wrote: »

Yeah, I've read various arguments trying to defend the plot ranging from it's just two opposing viewpoints, neither of which reflect Sorkins stance to the story isn't about rape at all, it's about old media versus new media.

I've yet to read one that I'm comfortable with.

I really don't see how people are having such issues with that portion of the plot. Just because you mightn't agree with a certain point of view doesn't mean it shouldn't be put out there. TV (be it fact or fiction) doesn't always have to make you feel comfortable, especially when dealing with issues which are so emotive for both sides.

S.M.B.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I really don't see how people are having such issues with that portion of the plot. Just because you mightn't agree with a certain point of view doesn't mean it shouldn't be put out there. TV (be it fact or fiction) doesn't always have to make you feel comfortable, especially when dealing with issues which are so emotive for both sides.

While I'm all for shows opening up a debate on certain issues I also think it's incredibly difficult for the subject to be tied up in a way that doesn't lean towards the show runners beliefs.

Sorkin appeared to be discussing something a lot more abstract than justice for rape victims but he was doing so within this context which is obviously a very sensitive subject.

Given my exposure to the show I felt it was inferring that Don was doing the morally correct thing by refusing to go through with the news piece. Maybe we're supposed to take issue with his actions but there's very little prompting me to think this is the case.

So just because I don't agree with a certain viewpoint it doesn't mean it shouldn't be put out there. It also doesn't mean I can't take offense to a viewpoint that the show seems to be condoning.

But maybe the characters of the newsroom are a lot more complex than I'm giving then credit for. I just don't see it myself.

Hyzepher

It wasn't that the rape story wasn't newsworthy, they we objecting to the decision to have the victim and alleged attacker interviewed at the same time.

S.M.B.

Hyzepher wrote: »

It wasn't that the rape story wasn't newsworthy, they we objecting to the decision to have the victim and alleged attacker interviewed at the same time.

Agreed, they were doing so in attempt to stick to their principles of not chasing higher ratings and an attempt to protect both the accused and accuser from the pitfalls of doing such a thing. Again, this to me was portrayed as a noble gesture by Don.

To frame this storyline around the above just didn't sit right with me. It clearly also upset a few others. The story of a female writer being "politely" asked to leave the writing room by sorkin after raising her concerns only amplifies my unease too.

Foxtrol

S.M.B. wrote: »

While I'm all for shows opening up a debate on certain issues I also think it's incredibly difficult for the subject to be tied up in a way that doesn't lean towards the show runners beliefs.

Sorkin appeared to be discussing something a lot more abstract than justice for rape victims but he was doing so within this context which is obviously a very sensitive subject.

Given my exposure to the show I felt it was inferring that Don was doing the morally correct thing by refusing to go through with the news piece. Maybe we're supposed to take issue with his actions but there's very little prompting me to think this is the case.

So just because I don't agree with a certain viewpoint it doesn't mean it shouldn't be put out there. It also doesn't mean I can't take offense to a viewpoint that the show seems to be condoning.

But maybe the characters of the newsroom are a lot more complex than I'm giving then credit for. I just don't see it myself.

See it wasn't just about justice for rape victims, it was the broader issue of 'the right' to anonymously publicly name someone guilty of a crime, potentially ruining their lives, when they haven't been convicted of anything. It's clear that Don feels for the girl and despises the guys who did it to her but he's bringing it to a broader level. Some people simply don't like talking about this side of this issue and I think the show actually managed to do it in a pretty sensitive way.

We take different things from watching TV shows then. I see characters on shows (especially the likes of this and the West Wing) where I can agree or disagree with their opinions or actions. Just because they decide to go a certain moral direction that I dont agree with, it doesn't make me offended or uncomfortable. The only time I would take offense is if a point of view is completely ignored or belittled, which it definitely wasn't in this case.

S.M.B.

Foxtrol wrote: »

See it wasn't just about justice for rape victims, it was the broader issue of 'the right' to anonymously publicly name someone guilty of a crime, potentially ruining their lives, when they haven't been convicted of anything. It's clear that Don feels for the girl and despises the guys who did it to her but he's bringing it to a broader level. Some people simply don't like talking about this side of this issue and I think the show actually managed to do it in a pretty sensitive way.

We take different things from watching TV shows then. I see characters on shows (especially the likes of this and the West Wing) where I can agree or disagree with their opinions or actions. Just because they decide to go a certain moral direction that I dont agree with, it doesn't make me offended or uncomfortable. The only time I would take offense is if a point of view is completely ignored or belittled, which it definitely wasn't in this case.

I get that this is what Sorkin was trying to discuss and I agree with his/the news teams stance to a certain extent. Especially in an age where there are reddits treating real live murder cases like a season of True Detective. I just don't think he should have used the rape storyline to frame it. It seemed a little insensitive. And as I mentioned earlier, when one of his female staff raised this issue she was rudely dismissed.

As for how we both view TV shows? I don't see the same complexity within The Newsroom (although it was a lot more evident in TWW). Maybe it's there and I just don't pick up on it. I see the core news team being the moral compass of the show as opposed to a flawed group who you can either agree or disagree with depending on the topic at hand.

I just realise these are pretty much the exact same points I made in my previous post....

Foxtrol

S.M.B. wrote: »

I get that this is what Sorkin was trying to discuss and I agree with his/the news teams stance to a certain extent. Especially in an age where there are reddits treating real live murder cases like a season of True Detective. I just don't think he should have used the rape storyline to frame it. It seemed a little insensitive. And as I mentioned earlier, when one of his female staff raised this issue she was rudely dismissed.

As for how we both view TV shows? I don't see the same complexity within The Newsroom (although it was a lot more evident in TWW). Maybe it's there and I just don't pick up on it. I see the core news team being the moral compass of the show as opposed to a flawed group who you can either agree or disagree with depending on the topic at hand.

I just realise these are pretty much the exact same points I made in my previous post....

Do we have a solid source for the rude dismissal or is it some internet rumour? I doubt there’s just one female writer in that room and either way I don’t see how one person (no matter their sex) being asked to leave the room strengthens your point at all, aside from possibly showing that one other person agrees with you. If I’m put on a project in work and push back against the chosen direction in an unconstructive manner then it is quite likely I’ll be taken off it. I don’t see why you keep highlighting it like it’s proof that Sorkin etc was wrong.

The staff is the moral compass of the show but they have shown numerous times that they aren’t always right. Just because a character I like and normal agree with makes a moral choice that doesn’t match my own opinion I don’t see why it should cause offense or discomfort.

It really sounds like you don’t want a show to discuss the topic of rape, especially the issue of balancing due process because of the potential for false reporting of rape. It really isn’t insensitive to discuss a topic once both sides are given their voice in a fair way, personally I found myself agreeing with both parties at different points in their discussion.

This is actually quite a hot button topic in the States at the minute given articles like the Rollingstone relating to UVA. In that case the article doesn’t name individuals directly but does their fraternity, which has raised questions about the rights and wrongs of the potential effects on the individuals in that fraternity who are completely innocent but are now tarnished because of it. In the Newsroom’s case, the girl’s site was taking it even another level, where individuals are being called rapists without a shred of evidence needing to be offered. It’s a topic that should be discussed, particularly in the US context.

leggo

The argument didn't have a clear winner. This is exactly what I said a few pages back: Sorkin puts a topic out there for discussion, people assume the side with the worst opinion is his (because he's due a kicking for some reason) and then are irate about the fact that their own view wasn't validated. It was an interesting, if randomly timed, look at a complex topic where both sides had their arguments aired fairly and convincingly.

syklops

I'm still reeling about Charlie.

Opinions on the show as a whole vary quite a bit on this thread but can we all agree he is the most likeable of all the characters?

Penn

syklops wrote: »

I'm still reeling about Charlie.

Opinions on the show as a whole vary quite a bit on this thread but can we all agree he is the most likeable of all the characters?

His erratic mood swings and outbursts kind of knock him down a bit. To be honest, Don is probably my favourite character.

leggo

Deaths at the end of a show's run don't really pack an emotional punch for me. They're all gonna be gone forever by Monday sure.

Charlie!! I found it hard but just about held back a tear or two at the end of the episode. To see such a powerful and strong character like Charlie just keel over and hit the floor, I was already torn before Mac told Will that he had died just before the credits.

The twist where we find out Will's cellmate was just a mental projection of his father was also powerful, I'm looking forward to rewatching the episode with this in mind.

With the series about to end, it was inevitable that Jim and Maggie's romantic arc moved towards a conclusion. The way the show went about it, setting it against the backdrop of them on the chase of an interview with Edward Snowden, made it bearable for me. Plus Maggie has become a lot less of an irritable character since those early days where the Jim/Maggie soap opera was much more prominent in the show.

Meathlass

How many episodes are left to air?

syklops

Penn wrote: »

His erratic mood swings and outbursts kind of knock him down a bit. To be honest, Don is probably my favourite character.

He's a 60 year old news man in the digital age and as has been hinted at more than once a borderline alcoholic if not a full blown alcoholic. Surely he's allowed the odd moodswing or outburst.

If asked I'd say Don is also my favourite character. He was badly written in the first couple of episodes, and came across as a prick, but he has really filled out in his role.

Eliott:"Up next is Sarah Bernhardt"
Don:"Its Sandra Bernhardt you idiot! Oh who the hell cares".

One of my favourite Don moments. One of many.

Meathlass

Meathlass wrote: »

How many episodes are left to air?

Just the one unfortunately.

wp_rathead

Sorkin's loathing of the internet really is prevalent through out this episode

I enjoyed Sloan's interview and I liked the little twist with Will's father..
Suppose they had to tie up the Magge and Jim story- but think fair to say that no one really gives much of a ****e about them

The editors should be shot for how they portrayed Charlie dying. He was an extremely likable character yet they managed to suck any emotion out of the scene with that fecking music

The Black Oil

I thought 3.05 was pretty well done. I saw the headline of AV Club's D grade on Monday morning and rolled my eyes a bit.

Not to say it wasn't without some preachy elements. The interview with the app guy - I just wanted the camera to stay still. Also, getting on the plane hijinks, more screen time for Jim/Maggie romance is never a good thing. The college student who had been raped seemed to have a certain amount of fortitude about her. I've not followed the stories have that actually happened as the discussion online can be quite toxic. Sucks about Charlie, though something was inevitable.

tommy2bad

While I enjoy the newsroom, I still have the feeling it just one guy arguing with himself. All the characters are the same, talk the same, have the same type of sarcastic wit, and end up convincing each other that they are right all the time. Yes it's Sorkin's fault, his dialog is the same no mater what he writes or what character he puts the words in the mouth of.
A pity because the plot moves well, the characters develop along interesting archs. Don has moved from yuppie pr1ck to a younger version of Will, Maggie from clutsy newsgirl to working reporter, Sloan from slightly autistic savant to a more rounded person. All the parts are well written if they didn't talk in the same voice.
Sorry to loose Charley, should have seen it coming, for the last couple of weeks I was getting concerned for the actor, the way he ran out of breath when given a long sentence to deliver had me thinking 'that guy is not in the best shape' turns out he was acting all along. Kudos!

errlloyd

tommy2bad wrote: »

While I enjoy the newsroom, I still have the feeling it just one guy arguing with himself. All the characters are the same, talk the same, have the same type of sarcastic wit, and end up convincing each other that they are right all the time.

Well it is set in a newsroom, they're all pretty much meant to be the same.

syklops

civis_liberalis

Finale Spoilers ahead.

Frankly, if you read this thread not having seen it, you deserve what you get, but anyways...

RIP Charlie.

Loved and hated the ending. A 180 on what I expected. It's a show they could drag a dozen seasons out of and I would still watch it.

And so ends my television watching until next year. Seems to be nothing grabbing my attention at all.

maudgonner

Some nostalgic moments for Sports Night Fans, and the traditional "What Kind of Day Has It Been" ep title, a nice touch for the final ep of what may be Sorkin's last tv series.

Although it's a show that has often left me frustrated, as it continually falls just short of its potential (it could/should have been astounding), I'd love to see it continue. Maybe with the addition of a kickass script editor to put a halter on Sorkin from time to time.

KevIRL

Terrible finale. Desperate self indulgeant stuff