The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Handsome Bob

Good end to a lukewarm 1st season. Sorkin is taking over primary writing duties for season 2 so hopefully he provides some consistency.

PhiloCypher

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Good end to a lukewarm 1st season. Sorkin is taking over primary writing duties for season 2 so hopefully he provides some consistency.

If IMDB is to be believed Sorkin was the primary writer this season.

Handsome Bob

http://www.digitalspy.ie/ustv/s211/the-newsroom/news/a394286/aaron-sorkin-replacing-newsroom-writers-for-season-2.html

Mr. K

A flawed but enjoyable first season. I don't like that the Maggie/Jim situation wasn't resolved and it'll be dragging on into the second season. In fact, none of the romantic subplots were wrapped up! It seems like Terry Crews will be sticking around too, but I'm okay with that. I just hope the writing tightens up for the second season.

mikemac1

Episode 10 was ok, not bad at all

Better then the last few weeks anyway

PhiloCypher

Handsome Bob wrote: »

http://www.digitalspy.ie/ustv/s211/the-newsroom/news/a394286/aaron-sorkin-replacing-newsroom-writers-for-season-2.html

Yeah I read that weeks ago , I wasn't disputing that fact , was just pointing out the fact that he is listed as sole writer on all but one episode this season according to IMDB & tv.com(episode 3 was cowritten by Gideon Yago) , so either all but one script didn't meet his exacting standards and his rewrites were so extensive they warranted the expunging of the fired writers credits or he had a tiny writers staff to begin with and is as much responsible for any faults in the show as they were.

On the final episode I have mixed feelings as it promised change on many fronts on the Maggie/Jim front , the Maggie/Don front, the Will/Mac front and Will/ACN network front but delivered very little albeit entertainingly. On the other hand I'd have been just as annoyed had they pulled a Hell on Wheels and gone for shock value in their first season finale before backpeddling to the status quo within the second hour of the new season.

Skerries

thank you for explaining to us 5 minutes earlier in the show what a Greater Fool was

and the tour bus scene, Really!?

VinLieger

Skerries wrote: »

and the tour bus scene, Really!?

Yeah i skipped that bit, couldnt deal with any more stupid jim maggie stuff, "oh your a good guy"

squonk

Episode 10 was OK from my standpoint. it wasn't spectacular but given the previous two episodes, I'd hoped for a little more but it was in no way the worst. I'm just annoyed that the relationship stuff continues unabated into next season. It would have been nice if it was all resolved. The SATC aspect seemed a bit odd but what the hey! Mac seemed a bit unhinged in this episode too, the part where she showed Will the notebook from episode one had her coming across a little scary. All that's left now is to wait for season 2 to roll on and take that on its merits.

Duck Soup

For all its faults, I really enjoyed the first season. Started off with a barnstormer with the Will set-piece speech and then spent a long time trying to live up to it.

The relationship stuff is necessary, but clumsily handled. I agree with the critics who've said that the female characters in the Newsroom are sketchily drawn. Mac has more to her than being Will's ex and possible future love interest, but that sometimes overshadows her role as The Best Damned Executive Producer In The World. Less ditzy and more steel needed. Similarly Maggie and now Sloan need to be more than the sum total of romantic advances towards them.

For me, it has three admirable strengths. The quality of cast (as I said, Sam Waterston has never been better and Daniels, Dev Patel and Jane Fonda have some decent acting chops between them), the Sorkin expositions/set-piece writing (which you either love or hate) and the meat of the argument: news has ceased to inform us and instead alternately scares and panders to us.

Jim and Maggie, get it on. Preferably within the first couple of episodes of season 2. The comedy of not very funny errors has become will-they-won't-they-who-the-fcuk-cares. Don and Sloan would be a much more interesting dance. Use Dev Patel. He can carry a movie, so I'm fairly sure he can do a bit more than gurn gormlessly.

The tone needs to drop into a more serious gear - if nothing else, that's what the premise demands. And get out of the newsroom occasionally - show rather than say the conflicts and currents that shape news coverage. All that said, I'm really looking forward to next season. Plenty of weighty matters to address and an entertaining vehicle to do it with.

don ramo

an enjoyable first season, i think people had unrealistically high expectations for this show, expecting it to be uber smart and snappy dialogue, if it was anyone but sorkin writing this show it wouldnt have been hammered as much as it did,

its great that this is on HBO cause at least it will get its fair chance to tell its story, but i do think the show will have to up its game next year, getting either better stories, or better character development, cause if they move at the same pace of season 1 itll be 2014 by the time season 2 finishes, in 2013:D

Cina

Am I the only one who noticed the fact that every time the two black characters speak in this show they speak sequentially? It happened in the last episode too and had me laughing. Sorkin is a racist!

Otacon

Cina wrote: »

Am I the only one who noticed the fact that every time the two black characters speak in this show they speak sequentially? It happened in the last episode too and had me laughing. Sorkin is a racist!

He did the same thing with Ed [Asian] and Larry [White] in the West Wing, and Chris [White] and Will [White] in Sports Night.

The Black Oil

Overall, I'd say it was a pretty disappointing show. Sorkin's capable of a lot better and he really needs to dial back on the romantic relationship stuff in season 2.

Such a shame to waste a very good actress like Alison Pill on a character as ditzy and unprofessional as Maggie. Did like seeing the Tea party trolls being slapped around, though.

tvnutz

Overall I was disappointed. I had actually started rewatching the West Wing before this came on air, and I had actually not heard Sorkin had a new show,don't know how I missed it, but I hadn't heard it.

So when i was watching the Newsroom I couldn't believe it was the same guy,the characters, the humour, the storylines, just shocking compared to the West Wing. Hard to believe it was the same guy.

Not to say overall it was shocking but I think it just could have been so much better. Especially with some of the terrible characters and bad love connections. One of the best ones in TWW was Donna and Josh which was never shoved in your face unlike Maggie and Jim.

I'll watch the 2nd season but it won't be something I'll be really dying to watch.

1huge1

The season was really hit and miss with me, the relationships and handled really poorly but at the same time I do understand they are necessary, as someone said earlier, the speech Will (daniels) made at the start of the very first episode set the bar very high and I really really hoping it could keep to that standard, but a few of the earlier episodes kind of left me with a ''could of done more with that'' feeling.

However I found the two blackout episodes quite good and was especially impressed with the finale. Couldn't help but love when they played baba o reilly when Will was getting out of the hospital bed.

Someone else said earlier that they will have to slow down the pace, couldnt agree more, if they go the same pace next season, they will end up in 2014 in 2013 :P

Think season 2 will really be make or break for the show. All the same, im looking forward to it.

Trippie

Season two will have the chance to gear up to and cover the presidential campaign in depth so the pace will slow right down naturally enough

K4t

The only positive thing I can say about the Newsroom is that it has made me appreciate even more how great the TWW was.

The Black Oil

K4t wrote: »

The only positive thing I can say about the Newsroom is that it has made me appreciate even more how great the TWW was.

Yep, credit to TWW in that although I've not watched in ages, I still remember the full names of the main White House staff and their jobs/positions. Ask me to name most of the Newsroom cast and much beyond anchor/executive producer...I haven't a clue.

Sam Waterston seems to be having a ball, though.

don ramo

rather an unfair similarity to draw upon, your comparing what i consider myself the greatest TV show i have ever watched to a 10 episode first season of a show, a show that has zero possibility of even touching the greatness of TWW,


all they have in common is a writer, and no matter how you look at it, he is only one man, looking at the producer credits there is only 1 other person besides sorkin that worked on TWW,

like i have already stated people had extremely high expectation for this show, and it never stood a chance of living up to them, its an ok show, that has potential, but as i said its never gonna touch TWW, even if it ran for 20 seasons,

The Black Oil

That's true enough. I didn't really have any expectations until I saw some footage and I think after Studio 60 (which I liked), my expectations wouldn't have been particularly high. Plus, when promoting the Social Network Sorkin said Newsroom would be wish fulfillment so I wasn't expecting another TWW even though that's it was.

I was hopeful that it would have something to say about the state of broadcast news media as we badly need that criticism and I think at times it has made some good points. In general, though, it's hitting the wrong notes a little too often. You're right in that too many expectations rest on one man and the brand that goes with that. A bit like a recently deceased CEO of a certain computer company...

syklops

tvnutz wrote: »

Overall I was disappointed. I had actually started rewatching the West Wing before this came on air, and I had actually not heard Sorkin had a new show,don't know how I missed it, but I hadn't heard it.

So when i was watching the Newsroom I couldn't believe it was the same guy,the characters, the humour, the storylines, just shocking compared to the West Wing. Hard to believe it was the same guy.

Not to say overall it was shocking but I think it just could have been so much better. Especially with some of the terrible characters and bad love connections. One of the best ones in TWW was Donna and Josh which was never shoved in your face unlike Maggie and Jim.

I'll watch the 2nd season but it won't be something I'll be really dying to watch.

You have to remember Season one of the west wing was 22 episodes in length. Season 1 of the Newsroom was only 10. I don't whether thats how Sorkin wrote it, or if thats all he was given.

Season 1 of TWW, started off with the awkwardness between Josh and Mandy, former bf/gf now working together etc. When people say Maggie is annoying, I think of Mandy and shudder. Thankfully she disappeared in Season 2. The Josh and Donna thing built over many many many episodes, before finally the will they, won't they ended in Season 7, so ~140 episodes later. The Newsroom may not, hopefully will, but probably wont, last that long.

syklops

The Black Oil wrote: »

Yep, credit to TWW in that although I've not watched in ages, I still remember the full names of the main White House staff and their jobs/positions. Ask me to name most of the Newsroom cast and much beyond anchor/executive producer...I haven't a clue.

Well again, even if you had only watched the first season of TWW, you would still have had twice as many opportunities to hear their names. Also, in TWW, they said their names more often because they had lots of meetings and introduced themselves, and there was even an intro to one episode where all the key characters said their name.

Maggie said her surname I think once in 10 episodes, Jim had his surname mentioned I think only twice, the first episode when he got introduced, and when Maggie shouted at him "James Tiberius Harper!". Sloan and Don a couple times each, and of course WIll says his name twice during each broadcast.

Like many of the myriad of complaints about the Newsroom, they are done in contrast to TWW, and thats a bit unfair.

VinLieger

syklops wrote: »

Well again, even if you had only watched the first season of TWW, you would still have had twice as many opportunities to hear their names. Also, in TWW, they said their names more often because they had lots of meetings and introduced themselves, and there was even an intro to one episode where all the key characters said their name.

They actually did that intro for about 8 or 9 episodes of series one i think

The Black Oil

A lot of people were comparing The Pacific to the Band of Brothers when it came out which is probably a fairer comparison (though one I'm not too inclined to make) since they're both mini series of 10 episodes. I think reaction was pretty mixed at the time with many falling into the 'not as good as BoB'/high expectations camp.

Re the number of episodes in TWW, that's probably a factor alright, but another part that contributed was the vibrancy of the characters on screen and how much they were wrapped up in their workplace. Anyway, moving on from the names business, and in the words of Bartlett, what's next?

The writers thing confused me a little. There was talk of some being fired, but is this just a rumour and Sorkin actually handled all writing duties? I would have sworn I only saw his name on each episode.

don ramo

syklops wrote: »

Sloan and Don a couple times each, and of course WIll says his name twice during each broadcast.

i felt like they called sloan, sloan sabbath nearly every third time her name was mentioned,

The Black Oil wrote: »

The writers thing confused me a little. There was talk of some being fired, but is this just a rumour and Sorkin actually handled all writing duties? I would have sworn I only saw his name on each episode.

my understanding is that a writer need to have a certain amount of input into a script in order to get their name on the episode credits, i remember hearing that sorkin did massive rewrites on a lot of the scripts the writing team gave to him, so much so that what was left of their contribution didnt merit a credit, bar the one episode where he was a co-writer,

so seeing as he done so much rewrites he just fired the staff, and will get new people in next season that he thinks will contribute better to the show,

well either that of hes just a ****ing asshole that knows the show will get renewed for a second season no matter what, after all he is arron sorking and HBO like being associated with people like him, and he probably doesn't like to share,

TheIrishGrover

syklops wrote: »

.........Season 1 of TWW, started off with the awkwardness between Josh and Mandy, former bf/gf now working together etc. When people say Maggie is annoying, I think of Mandy and shudder. Thankfully she disappeared in Season 2......

Yeah, before everyone goes comparing it to TWW remember Mandy...... NEVER forget Mandy!!!!!! She was an excruciatingly bad character. I actually find it difficult to rewatch S1 of TWW because of her. Very few multi-year series (As opposed to one-off miniseries) get everything right the first season. Characters change over time as the writers get used to them. Look at Josh in TWW or Sam.I mean Toby even laughed and smiled in the first season! The knowledge of having at least one season greenlit gives you time to explore many-episode arcs that you can really get your teeth into. (Bartlett's MS, Kumar etc). Also remember that it is a comedy drama as opposed to The Wire Having said that, I don't want it to go down the Ross-and-Rachel path and have at least a portion of every episode be dedicated to expressly to the same relationships over years and years. That's what soaps and American sitcoms are for.

don ramo

Damn technology, trying to delete a photo, but tweeted it instead, that's so Maggie:D:D:D

Otacon

don ramo wrote: »

Damn technology, trying to delete a photo, but tweeted it instead, that's so Maggie:D:D:D

My crush on her increases...

/swoon

/...followed by a sneaky fap

Biggins

don ramo wrote: »

Damn technology, trying to delete a photo, but tweeted it instead, that's so Maggie:D:D:D

She tweeted her pic twice - two different shots.
Nice of her!

syklops wrote: »

...Like many of the myriad of complaints about the Newsroom, they are done in contrast to TWW, and thats a bit unfair.

I agree.

syklops

Feck only heard about this now.

I suppose its too late to follow her on twitter now?

syklops

Can people still see me?




Yes, on your twitter feed.

Only getting around to the final episode of this and really not impressed by it. Season 2 needs a serious overhaul, Maggie needs to go. She brings nothing to the show and the relationship stuff between the various characters is just cringeworthy. I really don't think there is any professional work environment where people would spend more time asking for advice on their personal lives than doing the work they are paid for.

steve_r

I'm another of TWW fans who eagerly anticipated this. I’ve watched the first ten episodes over the past two weeks.

I did enjoy it, and I will stick with it, but I’m in two minds about it. I think that there’s a lot of merit in what posters such as Squonk and Darko have been saying, more on that below.

Ultimately I see it as a 7/10 tv show that’s entertaining because it’s on a subject matter that interests me, plus I enjoy the dialogue.

Relationships – Yes probably overdone, but I think that’s forgivable. Maybe with only ten episodes to start with they may have tried to rush things more than they needed to.

Political Bias – One poster earlier in the thread pointed out that they weren’t touching topics like trade unions, where you could have an even debate from both sides. Sorkin has clear political ideologies, and that’s fair enough, I happen to agree with a lot of them, and appreciate how eloquent he is in articulating them. That said, IMO it is disingenuous to use one of the lead characters a republican, and then use him as a mouthpiece for liberal policies. It creates an illusion of balance that I personally feel doesn’t exist on this show. Each to their own on this point, but that’s my take on it.

Mackenzie – I think her character is badly written in some circumstances, the power out speech was cringe worthy and for me, doesn’t reconcile with a character burnt out from war coverage.

Ups/Downs – I find the show a lot less consistent than TWW, sometimes it hits the same high points but there’s a lot of low points. I thought the mock debate was quite self serving and pretentious, and particularly insulting to the moderators who do ask the hard questions. Other low points – the scene on the bus could have been lifted from a rom-com, the email thing and the bigfoot story.

Slapstick – It doesn’t bother me as much as it bothers other people, but as one poster already said, its not something Sorkin does well at all.

Overall though, I am willing to let this stuff slide because it does entertain me!

Richard Dower

TV vet Marcia Gay Harden is joining the cast of Aaron Sorkin’s HBO cable drama. She’s replacing Rosemarie DeWitt who, as we posted last week, is leaving the show after shooting only a couple episodes from the upcoming second season (parties involved citing scheduling issues for her early departure from the show). So now Harden will take over the recurring role of Rebecca Halliday, a litigator who defends Atlantis Cable News in a wrongful termination suit. DeWitt’s completed scenes will be re-shot with Harden.

ew.com

The Black Oil

She'll be a good addition, I'd imagine.

If only this show was as good as Borgen.

thesultan

When is the show back on sky atlantic?

Basq

thesultan wrote: »

When is the show back on sky atlantic?

Probably around the same time it's back in the US..

.. am guessing late June / early July.

fisgon

There can´t be any other writer on TV that is as distinctive as Aaron Sorkin. I knew next to nothing about this show before starting to watch it, three days ago, except for the fact that Sorkin was involved, but within two minutes of the first episode that would have been obvious anyway.

In fact, the characters are not really distinguishable by their dialogue, as they all sound like Sorkin. They are his puppets, for his points of view, his off-kilter humour, his causes. The slick, hundred mile an hour verbal tennis matches that each conversation becomes are Sorkin himself playing out the situations and taking both sides, with the actors saying his words and the characters doing his bidding.

And very often they fall flat, these rat-a-tat exchanges, though you don't really notice as it's so fast. The whole thing is so self-conscious, so self-regarding, so pleased with itself and its own verbosity and cleverness and high-mindedness. The show is almost a parody of itself, or of Sorkin's style, I mean even the theme tune and credits are practically identical to the West Wing. The preachiness and desire to educate and instruct is there too, as well as this sense of naive idealism that wants to believe that good sense and rationale and compassion will always win out. It is manipulative and slightly lecturing and on its high horse, immensely self-satisfied, frequently unconvincing and filled with situations whose resolution you can see a mile off.

And yet, I'm only on episode 4, and can't stop watching the f**king thing.

syklops

fisgon wrote: »

There can´t be any other writer on TV that is as distinctive as Aaron Sorkin. I knew next to nothing about this show before starting to watch it, three days ago, except for the fact that Sorkin was involved, but within two minutes of the first episode that would have been obvious anyway.

In fact, the characters are not really distinguishable by their dialogue, as they all sound like Sorkin. They are his puppets, for his points of view, his off-kilter humour, his causes. The slick, hundred mile an hour verbal tennis matches that each conversation becomes are Sorkin himself playing out the situations and taking both sides, with the actors saying his words and the characters doing his bidding.

And very often they fall flat, these rat-a-tat exchanges, though you don't really notice as it's so fast. The whole thing is so self-conscious, so self-regarding, so pleased with itself and its own verbosity and cleverness and high-mindedness. The show is almost a parody of itself, or of Sorkin's style, I mean even the theme tune and credits are practically identical to the West Wing. The preachiness and desire to educate and instruct is there too, as well as this sense of naive idealism that wants to believe that good sense and rationale and compassion will always win out. It is manipulative and slightly lecturing and on its high horse, immensely self-satisfied, frequently unconvincing and filled with situations whose resolution you can see a mile off.

And yet, I'm only on episode 4, and can't stop watching the f**king thing.

I can't decide whether to thank this post or just add you to my ignore list.

steve_r

fisgon wrote: »

There can´t be any other writer on TV that is as distinctive as Aaron Sorkin. I knew next to nothing about this show before starting to watch it, three days ago, except for the fact that Sorkin was involved, but within two minutes of the first episode that would have been obvious anyway.

In fact, the characters are not really distinguishable by their dialogue, as they all sound like Sorkin. They are his puppets, for his points of view, his off-kilter humour, his causes. The slick, hundred mile an hour verbal tennis matches that each conversation becomes are Sorkin himself playing out the situations and taking both sides, with the actors saying his words and the characters doing his bidding.

And very often they fall flat, these rat-a-tat exchanges, though you don't really notice as it's so fast. The whole thing is so self-conscious, so self-regarding, so pleased with itself and its own verbosity and cleverness and high-mindedness. The show is almost a parody of itself, or of Sorkin's style, I mean even the theme tune and credits are practically identical to the West Wing. The preachiness and desire to educate and instruct is there too, as well as this sense of naive idealism that wants to believe that good sense and rationale and compassion will always win out. It is manipulative and slightly lecturing and on its high horse, immensely self-satisfied, frequently unconvincing and filled with situations whose resolution you can see a mile off.

And yet, I'm only on episode 4, and can't stop watching the f**king thing.

Yeah, the more Sorkin you watch the more that stuff starts to grate. I don't think I'd enjoy re-watching TWW becuase of stuff like that.

Very well put, the biggest sin for me is all the characters sounding the same. I can live with the rest.

It happens to be a subject matter I enjoy, I lap up all of these political shows. I was addicted too!

stevenmu

fisgon wrote: »

The preachiness and desire to educate and instruct is there too, as well as this sense of naive idealism that wants to believe that good sense and rationale and compassion will always win out.

The preachiness is very grating at first, but it mellows out a bit as the series progresses. Or at least you start to get a sense that it's the characters who are preachy at each other and striving to be idealists rather than the show's writer being preachy at the audience.

squonk

To be honest I thought the show improved with time and the last few episodes were quite good, but the finalé fell flat really. With some remove and time to think about everything, I don't want this show to come back. It was a pointless waste of time. Aside from the preachiness mentioned, I also found it particularly smug in that it's easy to be the person saying how situations should have been handled when it's two years after news stories have broke and all the ramifications and minutiae are well known. Hindsight is 20-20 as they say. I'm sure a lot of news men and women are out there looking for the best angle on a story they can but in the real world don't have the luxury of always waiting til the facts are fully revealed, because they don't necessarily know the timeline in advance. That is what makes the show unrealistic for me. Also, Jane Austen wrote Emma 200 odd years ago about a busy body trying to pair off all her friends with the best matches as she saw it, so we don't need Sorkin writing MacKenzie in the same vein these days. The woman is a producer and should do her job and go home. End of. I really, really wish HBO would pull the plug on this show.

syklops

Yeah, the more Sorkin you watch the more that stuff starts to grate. I don't think I'd enjoy re-watching TWW becuase of stuff like that.

I have re-watched and re-watched and re-watched the West Wing and not noticed any of this grating that you speak of.

steve_r

syklops wrote: »

I have re-watched and re-watched and re-watched the West Wing and not noticed any of this grating that you speak of.

The comment was more aimed at fisgon.

I enjoy Sorkin's work, and I admire his idealism, but I think that there are flaws with his work, just like with every other show.

I'll be watching season 2 so I ain't a hater!:D

Having finally started watching the West Wing and moving on to the second season, I would have to go on a limb and say that his best show so far has to have been Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. How it failed is beyond me, that one season was fantastic.

CastorTroy

Deleted User wrote: »

Having finally started watching the West Wing and moving on to the second season, I would have to go on a limb and say that his best show so far has to have been Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. How it failed is beyond me, that one season was fantastic.

They made fun of reality tv by calling it illiterate television. Maybe that was why it failed.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Having finally started watching the West Wing and moving on to the second season, I would have to go on a limb and say that his best show so far has to have been Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. How it failed is beyond me, that one season was fantastic.

I love studio 60 and do think it deserved at least 1 more season but it was so up its own ass its understandable why it failed, plus 30 rock had just started it and killed it in the ratings

CastorTroy

CastorTroy wrote: »

They made fun of reality tv by calling it illiterate television. Maybe that was why it failed.

They're right though.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

I love studio 60 and do think it deserved at least 1 more season but it was so up its own ass its understandable why it failed, plus 30 rock had just started it and killed it in the ratings

I think that a lot of Sorkin's output suffers from being smug and condescending. I loved Studio 60 but it never stood a chance of surviving given how it talked down to such a large percentage of the populace. The Newsroom suffers from a similar smugness, I get what Sorkin is trying to accomplish but a lot of it comes across as "look how much smarter than you I am".

Rolling news is a double edged sword and thanks to 24 hours new reporting the manner in which news is reported has changed drastically and has resulted in a move away from in-depth reporting of facts to wild speculation, opinion and guesswork. Watch any live news report and watch as more often than not the newsreader in the newsroom has more information than the reporter reporting from the scene. I like to think that the more malicious ones knowing all the facts will try and make the reporter look like an ass.

It's very easy for Sorkin to write the show and show how badly reported the news is but lets be honest doing so after the fact is easy as pie. There is no real wit or insight in the show and the way it looks at news reporting is simplistic and pretty st right forward and lets be honest, not all that original.