The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Otacon

So I am alone in liking the show? Looking forward to the finale and the second season?

OK then.

FloatingVoter

Not particularly looking forward to the finale but I'll give the second season a go. The new team of writers might make a difference.

hidinginthebush

It would appear I was right to give up on it after the first 3 episodes so. Did I miss anything remotely interesting?

syklops

Otacon wrote: »

So I am alone in liking the show? Looking forward to the finale and the second season?

OK then.

Your not alone. I love it it as well, as do 3 or 4 of my friends. Seemingly we are the only people on the internet who like it. I keep looking for places to go and discuss it, but I cant find anywhere where I don't have to wade through 6 pages of people saying how bad it is.

"I stopped watching at episode 2".

Then WTF are you doing still posting on threads about it???

Handsome Bob

mikemac1 wrote: »

Better shows then this never got a second season!

If it wasn't for HBO and the patience they seem to show I've no doubt this show would have been cancelled if it was on any other network.

VinLieger

syklops wrote: »

Your not alone. I love it it as well, as do 3 or 4 of my friends. Seemingly we are the only people on the internet who like it. I keep looking for places to go and discuss it, but I cant find anywhere where I don't have to wade through 6 pages of people saying how bad it is.

"I stopped watching at episode 2".

Then WTF are you doing still posting on threads about it???

Im also a fan, and that is exactly my problem, saying i stopped watching after episode 2 is just retarded its the same as saying "oh yeah i went to see that movie it was **** i left after 5 minutes" how the **** do you know what its like if you only watched the first 2 episodes of a 10 episode series? If you watch it all and then dont like it thats fine your entitled to your opinion but otherwise stop being so opinionated about something you havent watched in its entirety

mikom

VinLieger wrote: »

Im also a fan, and that is exactly my problem, saying i stopped watching after episode 2 is just retarded its the same as saying "oh yeah i went to see that movie it was **** i left after 5 minutes" how the **** do you know what its like if you only watched the first 2 episodes of a 10 episode series? If you watch it all and then dont like it thats fine your entitled to your opinion but otherwise stop being so opinionated about something you havent watched in its entirety

Two approximately hour long bites of a shit sandwich is enough to know you don't like it.
There is no need to devour the crusts as well.

squonk

Yeah, I'll see it out now. I've gone most of the way I might as well end the series with a balanced judgement having seen it all. I'll give Season 2 a chance too. I gave Falling Skies a second chance and it improved so I hope the same for the Newsroom but we'll see.

syklops

mikom wrote: »

Two approximately hour long bites of a shit sandwich is enough to know you don't like it.
There is no need to devour the crusts as well.

If you only watched 2 episodes, and you dont like it, what are you doing in this thread???

mikom

syklops wrote: »

If you only watched 2 episodes, and you dont like it, what are you doing in this thread???

Posting my opinion........... much the same as yourself

mikom wrote: »

Had it series linked in my Sky plus planner.
Watched the first few episodes.
Decided I wanted to kill the characters due to their verbal diarrhoea and love entanglements I could not give a fuck about.
Removed it from series link.
I don't care if Charles Bukowski wrote it, as it did not grab me.

Twas three episodes actually.

syklops

mikom wrote: »

Posting my opinion........... much the same as yourself

It was a rhetorical question not aimed directly at you but aimed at anyone who watched it, didnt like it, but still comes to this thread.

titan18

Otacon wrote: »

So I am alone in liking the show? Looking forward to the finale and the second season?

OK then.

I kinda like it. The last episode was bad imo, but have liked most of the others.

Foxtrol

Otacon wrote: »

So I am alone in liking the show? Looking forward to the finale and the second season?

OK then.

I'm enjoying it, as are several of my mates. Some here however seem to be sticking with watching it just so they can have a moan.

Prop Joe

VinLieger wrote: »

Im also a fan, and that is exactly my problem, saying i stopped watching after episode 2 is just retarded its the same as saying "oh yeah i went to see that movie it was **** i left after 5 minutes" how the **** do you know what its like if you only watched the first 2 episodes of a 10 episode series? If you watch it all and then dont like it thats fine your entitled to your opinion but otherwise stop being so opinionated about something you havent watched in its entirety

God,I love this show..People stop knocking it !!! I Used to hate Dan but kinda warming to him now,MacKenzie,Will and the Bodyguard are the best characters..Oh and Sloan !!!!!!!!!!!:D

Otacon

mikom wrote: »

Two approximately hour long bites of a shit sandwich is enough to know you don't like it.
There is no need to devour the crusts as well.

mikom wrote: »

Posting my opinion........... much the same as yourself

Twas three episodes actually.

So now you are spending your days staring at the crusts in disgust?

Of course there is no problem with people disliking the show and sharing that opinion, its the 'given up on the show' yet still watching crowd I find perplexing.

syklops

Otacon wrote: »

So now you are spending your days staring at the crusts in disgust?

Of course there is no problem with people disliking the show and sharing that opinion, its the 'given up on the show' yet still watching crowd I find perplexing.

And the "have stopped watching but still criticise it" crowd. Perplexing is the right word.

Skinfull

I'm really enjoying this show but there is a lot wrong with it. The dialogue gets a little heavy handed and the Sorkin type monologues are out of place with this set of characters. The women in the show are ridiculous and 2 dimensional, as far as I can see there are no strong female characters, at all.

Will is constantly changing, one minute smooth and always able to get these hot women to date him, then the next minute clumsy and struggling to put his pants on, literally. (Even if he was trying to get dressed, why was he hopping out of the office like that?)

I really like Daniels in this role, and Waterston is brilliant. The general feel of the office politics (less that gob****e trying to push bigfoot etc) is fine but I think they jumped in too deep with relationships, and will they wont they way too soon, when we didn't yet have a feel for the characters. Its been over a year since the first ep and some relationships are still stagnant in the form they were on day 1.

Room for improvement? Of course. But I think its going in the right direction, I'm excited to see this every week and I am really interested to see how they will handle the timeline now that they are almost caught up to present day.

sink

It withers in comparison to The West Wing but I am still getting some enjoyment out of and it is by no means a write off. I think TWW worked better because the romantic relationships between the characters developed slowly as part of a wider narrative. Josh and Donna, CJ and Danny through their working proximity built a rapport with each other and from that romantic feelings grew. The romance never came first, their jobs and working relationships came first. In comparison The Newsroom characters have been thrown into romantic relations before we even saw them working well together and it's comes across more like a car crash than believable relationships.

PhiloCypher

If there is one more slapstick scene this season I'm tapping out , do we really need to have someone do something stupid like send e-mails to everyone by accident, walk into doors or stumble out of their office with their pants off in every bloody episode , this is the sort of cheap audience pandering crap the show is supposed to be railing against , talk about being meta in the worst way.

mikom

Otacon wrote: »

So now you are spending your days staring at the crusts in disgust?

Not the crusts..... more so those walking around with nutella smeared around their mouths

syklops

mikom wrote: »

Not the crusts..... more so those walking around with nutella smeared around their mouths

So your basically a troll? Welcome to my ignore list.

mikom

syklops wrote: »

So your basically a troll?

My basically a troll what?

syklops

PhiloCypher wrote: »

If there is one more slapstick scene this season I'm tapping out , do we really need to have someone do something stupid like send e-mails to everyone by accident, walk into doors or stumble out of their office with their pants off in every bloody episode , this is the sort of cheap audience pandering crap the show is supposed to be railing against , talk about being meta in the worst way.

Someone said a few pages back that it should have more comedy in it. It cant win.

Cheap audience pandering like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TcGEcKjSu4

syklops

I love when I add trolls to my ignore list, and they respond with something immediately after and I can't see what it is they are saying.

Speaking of comedy. Will McAvoy stoned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI5E39UlvJM

My friend rang me from Dublin in the middle of the night saying he just saw the scene with the remote control and had re watched it about 4 times laughing his ass off.

Reading through the last few pages and surprised to see people asking why those of us not in love with the show continue to watch. It's simple really, we're hoping that the show will either begin to strike the right balance between comedy and drama or else embrace its soap elements and run with it.

In the summer months when there's not a lot on its easier to stuck with a show such as The Newsroom. It's relatively easy viewing, there's only 10 episodes and it has a fine cast. Its just the writing that lets it down. Studio 60 got the dynamic between comedy and drama just right and the writing was constantly strong. It felt like an intelligent, adult drama where as The Newsroom feels a middle of the road sitcom someone has tried to beef up with some tired observations on America.

If the show was on any other network it would not be getting a second season. And we're Sirkin not involved I doubt that HBO would be sticking would be bringing it back.

Otacon

Deleted User wrote: »

Reading through the last few pages and surprised to see people asking why those of us not in love with the show continue to watch. It's simple really, we're hoping that the show will either begin to strike the right balance between comedy and drama or else embrace its soap elements and run with it.

I didn't ask that [if you are referring to me]. I was asking why those who have 'given up on the show' still seem to be posting here.

Deleted User wrote: »

If the show was on any other network it would not be getting a second season. And were Sorkin not involved I doubt that HBO would be sticking would be bringing it back.

I actually fully agree with you here, which is why I'm really glad its on HBO. I really like this show. Its not even close to The West Wing but that's OK, very few shows are. When I started watching this, I didn't expect it to reach those heights, I just wanted entertainment and based on Sorkin's track record, this seemed to be a good bet - and I got what I came for.

Many shows are never given the chance to breathe and find their audience on other networks. The fact that The Newsroom would not get a second season on another network isn't as much an indictment against the show, but those other networks IMO.

Foxtrol

I dont think anyone has a problem with those who are giving it a chance but there seems to be a sizable proportion of posters who arent actually doing that, it rather appears they are watching to find the scenes / characters they dislike so they can then complain about them while ignoring the show's positives (I presume for them to be still watching they have to enjoy some parts of the show).

I cant think of a series where I liked every character and enjoyed aspect of the plot but if I just focused on these I would never get past the third episode. If you're giving the show a chance maybe try actually giving it a chance.

squonk

Foxtrol wrote: »

I dont think anyone has a problem with those who are giving it a chance but there seems to be a sizable proportion of posters who arent actually doing that, it rather appears they are watching to find the scenes / characters they dislike so they can then complain about them while ignoring the show's positives (I presume for them to be still watching they have to enjoy some parts of the show).

I cant think of a series where I liked every character and enjoyed aspect of the plot but if I just focused on these I would never get past the third episode. If you're giving the show a chance maybe try actually giving it a chance.

I certainly am. I'm committed to seeing out this season and will be on board for Season 2 when it starts. The reason I'm sticking with it is because it's the Summer so there isn't a lot out there anyway but more importantly, there's a great mix of ingredients there but the chef has no idea what he's doing. I like some things in the episodes from time to time but find a lot of contrivance and things that are just way over the top. I may have said it before but I'm waiting for the show to succeed and deliver a great all round experience. Were the writing kack and the acting equally poor AND were the entire premise just garbage, I'd probably give up. I did that with Touch but this show can be good. It needs to find it's identity. Sloan is my favourite character so far. She has come in mid way through the run and that's a positive step. I'm hoping some more positives emerge after the break. finally, were this a winter season show, I'd have bailed by now. My standards are higher during the winter season, but there's more choice there too.

touts

I'm going to give it another season. The first season of the west wing was far from it's best and Sorkin had 20+ episodes to try and get that right. As the season went on the President got much more screen time other characters got pushed back. In season 2 the awful slapstickish Mandy character was just gone without an explanation and the show was better for it. There was some great funny, even slapstick, moments in all seasons of the West Wing (big block of cheese, Peters map, the turkeys etc) and love interest (Josh/Donna, Josh/Amy, Kate/Will etc) but after some mistakes in season one none of it ever overpowered the central storylines.

In the case of the Newsroom you can already see the changes. The Charlie character has sobered up and become far more credible (although there is a bit to go and the terrible start they gave him really constrains the character's development potential). I think Sloan is also starting to develop into a strong "celeb economist" character. I see the seeds of a CJ in her. Both Don and Jim have become more mature characters and could become the Newsroom's Sam/Josh. I would like to see Jane Fonda's character get more airtime. If they dumped Charlie and somehow had her becoming more hands on running the news division she could become the show's wise and experienced Leo. Hopefully Maggie will get the Mandy treatment and just disappear. Will's character is pretty good as the central character supported by the rest. Mac is... well a millstone around the show. She is a sitcom character in a serious role and unfortunately they just can't pretend she never existed come season 2. Unlike Charlie, Jim, Don or Sloan we have seen no maturity of the character and nothing that makes her credible as an experienced hard nosed war reporter returning to head up a team of journalists as EP. They have to find a way to kill her off with Don taking over as EP and Jim his number two.

So that's my take on it. There is potential. There are some signs of change but they have to make some hard decisions between Season 1 and 2.

PhiloCypher

Foxtrol wrote: »

I dont think anyone has a problem with those who are giving it a chance but there seems to be a sizable proportion of posters who arent actually doing that, it rather appears they are watching to find the scenes / characters they dislike so they can then complain about them while ignoring the show's positives (I presume for them to be still watching they have to enjoy some parts of the show).

I cant think of a series where I liked every character and enjoyed aspect of the plot but if I just focused on these I would never get past the third episode. If you're giving the show a chance maybe try actually giving it a chance.

*Edit*Just wanna preface this post by saying While I think the show has potential I don't feel it is currently being met */edit*

This argument brings to mind something Will or Mac brought up in the show , which is this fallacy that there are always two equal sides to every argument and/or more pertinently to my point that you have to be fair and balanced , which is of course bulls**t , this is a forum for open debate about this show do people really have to preface every critical post whether its their first or twentieth with a gush in order to not be labeled as essentially trolls, Reallly ????

syklops wrote: »

Someone said a few pages back that it should have more comedy in it. It cant win.

Cheap audience pandering like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TcGEcKjSu4

That video is neither representative of the sort of cheap slapstick laughs I was complaining about this show overusing nor emblematic of the type of laughs that particular show aimed at on anywhere like as consistent a basis as Newsroom is with its slapstick schtick.

Otacon

Otacon wrote: »

I actually fully agree with you here, which is why I'm really glad its on HBO. I really like this show. Its not even close to The West Wing but that's OK, very few shows are. When I started watching this, I didn't expect it to reach those heights, I just wanted entertainment and based on Sorkin's track record, this seemed to be a good bet - and I got what I came for.

Many shows are never given the chance to breathe and find their audience on other networks. The fact that The Newsroom would not get a second season on another network isn't as much an indictment against the show, but those other networks IMO.

I agree that shows are cancelled far too quickly by networks who refuse to give developing shows a chance. The Newsroom is one such show that were it on any other network would have most likely ended after 4 or 5 episodes. The Newsroom has potential, a hell of a lot of it but it sadly goes nowhere and squanders a great cast. Sure season 2 could be a massive step up and the show could become the new West Wing but I have my doubts. From everything I have seen thus far it's obvious that Sorkin has no idea how to mesh the comedic and dramatic elements of the show and after 8 or so epiodes I don't think that he will strike the right balance with another 10 episodes.

FloatingVoter

Look, Cheers went nowhere until it found the right slot in season 2. MASH was a slow burn. Would the Sopranos have even gotten a chance if it weren't for Analyse This (the De Niro movie). It was a lame first season, but there is room to improve and Sorkin has already acknowledged this.

FloatingVoter

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Look, Cheers went nowhere until it found the right slot in season 2. MASH was a slow burn. Would the Sopranos have even gotten a chance if it weren't for Analyse This (the De Niro movie). It was a lame first season, but there is room to improve and Sorkin has already acknowledged this.

I think that most of the shows problems could be adressed if the shows format was changed. At close to an hour there's far too much filler in every episode and it really drags the show down. A 42 minute runtime with the emphasis on the dramatic aspects could vastly improve the show and make it that much more watchable. That or jettison the drama aspects, retool the show to a 22 minute format and focus on the comedy.

As much as every show deserves a chance, The Newsroom has had 9 chances so far and there's been little thus far to justify giving it another 10 chances.

I'm playing catch up on the past few episodes and there is some truly terrible writing in there. Some of it is so poor that were similiar storylines and scenes used in an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond we'd be criticising the show for beign lazy and unoriginal. Just becuase the Newsroom is somewhat more highbrow does not mean that such poor writing should be forgiven or over looked. Like a lot of people criticising the show, I want to see this one improve. It has so much potential but thus far has done nothing with it.

I'll stop now as I'm typing on a phone and this could go on and on.

tommy2bad

Darko has a point, the long format doesn't suit this show. It's trying to keep a fast pace and doing this by slapstick and pointless dialog. If it lost 10 minuets and had some story editing it might seem better.
Or it could become more thoughtfull and keep the time. I'm not sure the Girl Friday screwball comedy is needed to do a media show.
What I'm saying it that this needs to get of the fence, either it a screwball comedy or it's a serious drama set in a newsroom.

Foxtrol

PhiloCypher wrote: »

*Edit*Just wanna preface this post by saying While I think the show has potential I don't feel it is currently being met */edit*

This argument brings to mind something Will or Mac brought up in the show , which is this fallacy that there are always two equal sides to every argument and/or more pertinently to my point that you have to be fair and balanced , which is of course bulls**t , this is a forum for open debate about this show do people really have to preface every critical post whether its their first or twentieth with a gush in order to not be labeled as essentially trolls, Reallly ????

There's debate and then there's posters who will moan about one moment of a scene in a 1 hour episode, while ignoring the remainder. In my eyes that isn't giving a show a chance. Though I think it could improve in points, I'm enjoying the show for what it is rather than what I hoped / wanted it to be.

Jimdagym

I love the show. I really do. Its obviously far from perfect but there you go.
I certainly dont want to see the personal lives bits cut back on. Without them it is just an excercise in how the big news stories should have been presented.


Also, people in this thread need to use the phrase "tacked on" more :pac:

PhiloCypher

Foxtrol wrote: »

There's debate and then there's posters who will moan about one moment of a scene in a 1 hour episode, while ignoring the remainder. In my eyes that isn't giving a show a chance. Though I think it could improve in points, I'm enjoying the show for what it is rather than what I hoped / wanted it to be.

That's because for the most part it is far easier to put into words what you feel is wrong with something then to talk in nebulous terms about what it got right , that is not to say they/I think the episodes were completely without merit we just see little point in debating what the show has gotten right when there are actual issues to discuss .

Nowhere in the charter does it say opinions expressed must be balanced, if we were all even handed in every post these threads would be insufferably tedious , give me lively debate anyday. So please can we just drop this "if you don't like it don't watch it , but what about what the show gets right ?? " attitude , it wastes bandwidth, lets all just agree to disagree, one side talks about the shows strengths the other its weakness and we debate each others opinions of same .

syklops

touts wrote: »

I'm going to give it another season. The first season of the west wing was far from it's best and Sorkin had 20+ episodes to try and get that right. As the season went on the President got much more screen time other characters got pushed back. In season 2 the awful slapstickish Mandy character was just gone without an explanation and the show was better for it. There was some great funny, even slapstick, moments in all seasons of the West Wing (big block of cheese, Peters map, the turkeys etc) and love interest (Josh/Donna, Josh/Amy, Kate/Will etc) but after some mistakes in season one none of it ever overpowered the central storylines.

In the case of the Newsroom you can already see the changes. The Charlie character has sobered up and become far more credible (although there is a bit to go and the terrible start they gave him really constrains the character's development potential). I think Sloan is also starting to develop into a strong "celeb economist" character. I see the seeds of a CJ in her. Both Don and Jim have become more mature characters and could become the Newsroom's Sam/Josh. I would like to see Jane Fonda's character get more airtime. If they dumped Charlie and somehow had her becoming more hands on running the news division she could become the show's wise and experienced Leo. Hopefully Maggie will get the Mandy treatment and just disappear. Will's character is pretty good as the central character supported by the rest. Mac is... well a millstone around the show. She is a sitcom character in a serious role and unfortunately they just can't pretend she never existed come season 2. Unlike Charlie, Jim, Don or Sloan we have seen no maturity of the character and nothing that makes her credible as an experienced hard nosed war reporter returning to head up a team of journalists as EP. They have to find a way to kill her off with Don taking over as EP and Jim his number two.

So that's my take on it. There is potential. There are some signs of change but they have to make some hard decisions between Season 1 and 2.

Thank you. Finally a post actually discussing the show.

Deleted User wrote:

I think that most of the shows problems could be adressed if the shows format was changed. At close to an hour there's far too much filler in every episode and it really drags the show down. A 42 minute runtime with the emphasis on the dramatic aspects could vastly improve the show and make it that much more watchable. That or jettison the drama aspects, retool the show to a 22 minute format and focus on the comedy.

Darko, also, thank you for discussing the show. "Most of the shows problems", maybe I am easily satisfied, but I don't have too many problems with the show. There is no character I find irritating, I like the comedy, and even Mac does not annoy me that much. In the most recent episode where she shouts so much her face goes red, that's acting. That's talent. She is a bit like Mandy from the West Wing, and as touts said, they can't do a Mandy on her, in that, come Season 2, Mandy/Mac has disappeared with no explanation. She is there for keeps, they just need to write her slightly differently.

PhiloCypher wrote:

this is a forum for open debate about this show do people really have to preface every critical post whether its their first or twentieth with a gush in order to not be labeled as essentially trolls, Reallly ????

No they don't. But as we have seen, and I can quote such posts here if you wish, "I stopped watching after episode two, and I think it is sh|te, and anyone who likes it is a TV snob" type posts is not contributing to a discussion. I don't mind if people don't like the show. I do. I am happy to discuss the show with people who do not like it, but if you read back over the last twenty or so pages of this thread there is an awful lot of people who don't want to discuss it, they just want to be seen to diss it. Thats what twitter is for.

squonk

I just finished watching episode 8. They actually got this episode right. That was a good mix of drama, comedy, and conflict. The characters look good when their backs are against the wall and the introduction of the whistleblower plot has added tension. Even Maggie behaved herself and looked like a credible journalist. It was a big step up. I was looking for this from season two. I'm glad I seem to be getting it now. it's a good sign. I just hope that episode 9 and 10 don't bring me back to disappointment,

I'll go one better. I'm amending this post because I decided to stick and watch episode 9. All I'll say is I'm on board now. This is why I stuck with the show and why I criticized because I knew all the bits were here, they just needed to be put in the right order. This I happening now. 8 & 9 were a huge overall improvement. I hope this is the shape of things to come!!

syklops

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Nowhere in the charter does it say opinions expressed must be balanced, if we were all even handed in every post these threads would be insufferably tedious , give me lively debate anyday. So please can we just drop this "if you don't like it don't watch it , but what about what the show gets right ?? " attitude , it wastes bandwidth, lets all just agree to disagree, one side talks about the shows strengths the other its weakness and we debate each others opinions of same .

Read the last 23 pages. No one ever said "if you dont like it dont watch it".

The people who want to discuss it, either fans or non fans, want to discuss it. Not wade through pages of "I watched 2 episodes, didnt like it". This is a phenomenon not limited to boards, it is happening all over the world, on every internet forum.

PhiloCypher

syklops wrote: »

Read the last 23 pages. No one ever said "if you dont like it dont watch it".

The people who want to discuss it, either fans or non fans, want to discuss it. Not wade through pages of "I watched 2 episodes, didnt like it". This is a phenomenon not limited to boards, it is happening all over the world, on every internet forum.

syklops wrote: »

It was a rhetorical question not aimed directly at you but aimed at anyone who watched it, didnt like it, but still comes to this thread.

Someone has a very short memory .

Also I give you exhibits A

Biggins wrote: »

The show is not perfect - buts its definably a Sorkin show.
Its a case of you either like the way he oft times does things, are willing to work with it at least or just turn off and do something better instead...
Why Don't You...

And B

Des wrote: »

every new show has people who watch then complain, then watch again the next, and complain again, but then watch episode three, and complain online again, ad infinitum.

I don't know why people waste their time watching something they clearly don't like watching.

It was the same in the Walking Dead thread, week in week out the same morons who panned the last episode were back again, panning the latest.

STOP WATCHING IDIOT.

Christ almighty, I'd love to have that much time on my hands that I could afford ot waste it watching an hour of TV I clearly don't like, so I can come up with the most verbose complaint about it on an internet forum.

Clowns.[/U][/B]

syklops wrote: »

No they don't. But as we have seen, and I can quote such posts here if you wish, "I stopped watching after episode two, and I think it is sh|te, and anyone who likes it is a TV snob" type posts is not contributing to a discussion. I don't mind if people don't like the show. I do. I am happy to discuss the show with people who do not like it, but if you read back over the last twenty or so pages of this thread there is an awful lot of people who don't want to discuss it, they just want to be seen to diss it. Thats what twitter is for.

On the contrary upon reading back through the entire thread(and I invite you to do so if you don't believe me) you will find that the people critiquing the show go into far more detail then the fanboys whose posts mostly amount to "fantastic episode last night can't wait till next week", yet I don't see anybody calling those people out for not adequately contributing to the discussion strangely.

Thread breaks down something like this , the first 10 or so pages are pretty positive gushing in some places, it's the shows honeymoon period and everyone wants to give it a chance , by page 11/12 we are on episode 4 and the tide begins to turn issues begin to come to the fore and are discussed IN DETAIL by certain posters , interspersed with this a number of posts reference the snobbery that surrounds the show wherever it's discussed on any forums(and indeed this one) or in the workplace whereby anyone that has an issue with the show is told they obviously doesn't "get it" , by page 18 people have become somewhat disillusioned and admittedly, bar a few stalwart posters, the posts do little but reaffirm that posters disappointment in the show, but that small sample in no way reflects how this show has been discussed in this thread.

Someone I know was watching the episodes earlier today and I caught a few minutes of season 5. There is some truly terrible moments in there, the whole people attacking doors slapstick was so stupid I felt sorry for everyone involved. Even worse was the moment when Will made out that Jim getting hit with a door and not going home was somewhat heroic. It was cringeworthy. As was the whole having personnal arguements in the middle of your workplace, it's so unprofessional and few places would stand for it.

I think my biggest issue with the show is just how ridicolous some of the characters are. Neal is one of the worst characters on TV, he's there simply to be the butt of jokes. The whole bigfoot thing was beyond a joke, no one in the real world would call in their coworkers on their day off at 11am to sit through a presentation on Bigfoot. It stretches credibility a little too far.

Maggie is a joke of a character, what the hell she's doing working there is beyond me. She's unprofessional as hell and appears to be rather incompetant at her job. I doubt that any newsroom would keep her on based on her inabilty to accomplish any task or handle herself in a manner fitting the work place.

Jimdagym

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone I know was watching the episodes earlier today and I caught a few minutes of season 5. There is some truly terrible moments in there, the whole people attacking doors slapstick was so stupid I felt sorry for everyone involved. Even worse was the moment when Will made out that Jim getting hit with a door and not going home was somewhat heroic. It was cringeworthy. As was the whole having personnal arguements in the middle of your workplace, it's so unprofessional and few places would stand for it.

I think my biggest issue with the show is just how ridicolous some of the characters are. Neal is one of the worst characters on TV, he's there simply to be the butt of jokes. The whole bigfoot thing was beyond a joke, no one in the real world would call in their coworkers on their day off at 11am to sit through a presentation on Bigfoot. It stretches credibility a little too far.

Maggie is a joke of a character, what the hell she's doing working there is beyond me. She's unprofessional as hell and appears to be rather incompetant at her job. I doubt that any newsroom would keep her on based on her inabilty to accomplish any task or handle herself in a manner fitting the work place.

I agree about the joke being out of place, but to be fair the lad did get stitches. I wouldnt be going back to finish my shift.

telekon

While I'm still enjoying the newsroom in general, any time Maggie is involved in a scene I cannot help but wince. She is just dreadful.

I actually liked her in the first two episodes but now she is managing to ruin the whole show for me. She is just so annoying, obnoxious and LOUD!!

I really couldn't care less about the love dynamic angle, the will-they-won't-they thing going on with Jim. Wasn't this already done with Tim and Dawn in the Office?! And that worked a gazillion times better than this.


Sort it out Sorkin, just give me the news goddammit!!

squonk

Darko summed up an awful lot of my problems with the early shows very well. It was below par, well below par and it came across as 'I'm Aaron Sorkin and you numptys will watch anything I write because I'm simply better than you are', when in fact the people writing Revenge, White Collar, Suits etc. can handle a fantasy workplace from day 1 with applomb. It took 8 episodes before I felt like was treated as an intelligent viewer and something entertaining was put my way. I also started to feel an afinity with the characters, something which is very much missing from earlier episodes. Some of the slapstick was still stupid, Will falling out of his office in his jocks being one but I let it slide given the quality of the episode otherwise.

Having the reporter there who was the guy she cheated on Will with was a good move. It gave us background and I suppose it brings the incident to life somewhat. The whistleblower is a good thing also as it moves the plot on and takes things away from the clique which is always good.

Do I believe McKenzie is a hard hitting journalist returned from the frontlines at the moment? Not a bit of it. She's a ditz who looks like she'd be outside her comfort zone in rural conneticut but I'm willing to play along for now. Maggie has been toned down Thank God and Big Foot Boy has actually been given something meaningful to contribute. Frankly he's acting like a proper nerd now rather than a general pain in the hole for all. If Episode 10 ends in the current vein I'll be very happy and will look forward to Season 2. If we're back to Ep 5 & 6 standards, then I'll probably explode with frustration.

syklops

syklops wrote: »

Darko, also, thank you for discussing the show. "Most of the shows problems", maybe I am easily satisfied, but I don't have too many problems with the show. There is no character I find irritating, I like the comedy, and even Mac does not annoy me that much. In the most recent episode where she shouts so much her face goes red, that's acting. That's talent. She is a bit like Mandy from the West Wing, and as touts said, they can't do a Mandy on her, in that, come Season 2, Mandy/Mac has disappeared with no explanation. She is there for keeps, they just need to write her slightly differently.

Thought that I had replied to you yesterday. It's not like the shows issues are enough to put me off watching but there are issues which really do drag the show down.

The writing is at times truly terrible, the slapstick is dreadful and over used and there are some really annoying characters. Maggie is just a joke, she's completely unbeliveable and there is no news network that would keep her employed considering how inept she is at her job. The relationship between her and Jim is trite and cliched and simply a rehash of the one we saw in the Office.

As I said before this, Neal is just a joke and completely wastes Dev Patel. Granted he's had more to do in recent episodes but it simply does not negate how badly his character was used for most of the series. As I said the bigfoot episode was dreadful and I found myself sorely tempted to turn it simply skip the scene.

Mac as a character has a lot of potential but the character is wasted. It's hard to believe that she could have been embedded in a warzone considering how fragile she comes across in the show. Her performance is good but her character is just hard to take serious.

ben.schlomo

Just watched episode 9 now, we were disappointed in it, compared to 8 it was pretty poor, Mac was way too over the top throughout, to the point of being incredibly annoying. The Will in his pants bit was a needless joke. The Mac and Jim poem thing was cringe too. Hopefully 10 is better as there is a lot i like about the show.

VinLieger

Well just finished episode 10 there and i dont care what others say, yes some of the characters stuff is forced, sorkins bleading heart liberalism is overbearing at times and i hope maggie dies in a fire however i like it, it may be no west wing, which in my opinion is one of the greatest shows ever but i still like it and lets see if they can improve it a bit for season 2

Kirby

I would agree with VinLieger.

Also, Baba O Riley makes any show 14% better and 28% more inspirational. I've done research.

xxyyxx

I enjoyed this week's episode. Much better than other weeks.