Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Options
13567…33

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    slavetothegrind
    Registered Users Posts: 2,789 ✭✭✭slavetothegrind


    absolutely loved it!

    Sorkin on top form, opening speech was a typical sorkin masterpiece.

    It is already shaping up to be a classic, roll on next sunday!

    Finally another show on a par with the west wing.:D


  • Options
    #63
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Skinfull wrote: »
    He had two sources... convenient as it may be, it is plausible. Buddy working as a BP engineer and a sister at the Haliburton site. Thats two people that were presumably in the know from the get go. The bit that jarred with me was the BP safety check guy who came onto the show, that was incredibly unlikely.

    1 concidence ok but two? so what we learn from newsroom is that if you want to do proper news, you need to have talkitive sister and old roommate who are in the right jobs at the right time.

    rubbish


  • Options
    #64
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Biggins wrote: »
    After MUCH waiting, Aaron Sorkin has returned to the American TV networks with a new show.

    This show is being panned by those that are upset Sorkin dare stated from the very start, some home truths.

    ...asskissing "review"....

    saw one review that said sorkin writing one argument after another for himself to win... that sums it up.

    Video compiles all of Aaron Sorkin’s recycled lines into one clip



  • Options
    #65
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    expectationlost wrote: »
    1 concidence ok but two? so what we learn from newsroom is that if you want to do proper news, you need to have talkitive sister and old roommate who are in the right jobs at the right time.

    rubbish

    The person that spoke said it was a first time for him. He was being honest and frank.

    What we do actually learn from Sorkin (if we look between the lines and actions of the various characters) is his thoughts/feelings on what characteristics might make a good newsroom - but then its takes a bit of insight to have koped that!

    expectationlost wrote: »
    saw one review that said sorkin writing one argument after another for himself to win... that sums it up.

    Let us guess - an American review right?
    Enough said!

    Do us a favour if you hate it that much - give the rest a miss!
    Your loss.


  • Options
    #66
    shrewdness
    Registered Users Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭shrewdness


    Just seen this and I really enjoyed it, looking forward to the next one.

    Never really seen any of Sorkin's work until recently, and that which I have seen I've really liked (Social Network, Moneyball, this pilot), would it be fair to say I'd like The West Wing? Heard alot about it but never tried watching it yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Biggins wrote: »
    The person that spoke said it was a first time for him. He was being honest and frank.

    What we do actually learn from Sorkin (if we look between the lines and actions of the various characters) is his thoughts/feelings on what characteristics might make a good newsroom - but then its takes a bit of insight to have koped that!


    the only reason the beat everyone to the story was that they had two key sources ring him, i mean wtf, if he cultivated sources over the years, done previous work on the issue, had stringers in the right places these are the things I guess which would be the characteristics of a good producer not dumb luck.


  • Options
    #68
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    expectationlost wrote: »
    the only reason the beat everyone to the story was that they had two key sources ring him, i mean wtf, if he cultivated sources over the years, done previous work on the issue, had stringers in the right places these are the things I guess which would be the characteristics of a good producer not dumb luck.

    Sometimes that what life is, luck and taking that with what skills you have, a bit of guts and 'feeling' about something.
    In real life, Woodward and Bernstein had the same feeling about Watergate by the way, they too showed what real journalism can be also.

    That was the point about the character we are referring to and I suspect thats what Sorkin was alluding to - that sadly is now lost because people/newsrooms just want to play it safe and fear the corporate lawyers (which also is alluded to in the first episode).
    I guess you missed all that too in the first part.


  • Options
    #69
    CastorTroy
    Registered Users Posts: 28,794 ✭✭✭✭CastorTroy


    This show made me think I wouldn't mind going and watching the West Wing since I missed out on it before.

    I enjoyed this. I'm not someone who could identify Sorkin type dialogue, but I have seen Studio 60(Liked it apart from the actual sketches which weren't funny and probably contributed to the figures. Oh and referring to reality tv as illiterate television. :)), Charlie Wilson's War(liked it) and Social Network(Again, very enjoyable)

    I will keep watching and may even start to rectify not seeing West Wing or Sports Night

    Edit: Oh as for the opening credits, they're not great but they must be taking big stories from throughout history, as I recognise the shot of the guy reporting the assassination of JFK. (No I'm not that old. I remember it from the movie, or maybe Reeling in the Years. :))


  • Options
    #70
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Biggins wrote: »
    Sometimes that what life is, luck and taking that with what skills you have, a bit of guts and 'feeling' about something.
    In real life, Woodward and Bernstein had the same feeling about Watergate by the way, they too showed what real journalism can be also.

    That was the point about the character we are referring to and I suspect thats what Sorkin was alluding to - that sadly is now lost because people/newsrooms just want to play it safe and fear the corporate lawyers (which also is alluded to in the first episode).
    I guess you missed all that too in the first part.

    hence setting up his own easy answers, he could beat everyone over the head with an issue that required no skill or time for them.

    woodword and bernstein didn't figure out the story in half an hour ( i know this is tv but they had ten eps), maybe the story would be more believable over two eps.


  • Options
    #71
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    Anyone else unable to stop picturing Jeff Daniels dressed as a dog?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    I liked the first episode a lot. It wasn't perfect, but that may just have been my European sensibilities getting a bit tired with some of the patriotism. Minor quibble with the credits: I don't know what it is but I don't like them.

    I love the idea of reporting news stories that have already happened, really looking forward to seeing what else they use.
    I think Daniels and Mortimer are great together, good chemistry.
    I adore John Gallagher Jr so I can't be impartial when it comes to him but very glad to see him in this.
    The script is obviously very tight as well.

    I watched it last night and was wishing I had more of it to watch today so that's always a good sign.


  • Options
    #73
    Basq
    Registered Users Posts: 43,774 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    This was fecking excellent!

    Daniels was on top form, Blunt was on top form and Waterston was great (although didn't like the Twitter line!). In fact, there's not a weak link in the cast.

    It's 72 minute runtime flew by and loved how the BP Oil Spill was suddenly revealed mid-way through along with the revelation of the date.

    While I adore most things Aaron Sorkin has done, this definitely could be something special, and it's due to get an even longer shelf life than 'Studio 60..' on HBO too!

    Can't wait for more!


  • Options
    #74
    WatchWolf
    Registered Users Posts: 545 ✭✭✭WatchWolf


    I loved it.


  • Options
    #75
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    After a pretty bizarre write-up in Canada's Globe and Mail (where either Sorkin really was that much of an asshole or the reporter is making things seem more sinister than they were), an internet meme ("Hey, Internet Girl") has been spawned. I think Sorkin made it clear he's not a big fan of internet reporting...
    "Listen here, Internet girl. It wouldn’t kill you to watch a film or pick up a newspaper once in a while.”
    :pac:


  • Options
    #76
    sReq | uTeK
    Registered Users Posts: 5,999 ✭✭✭sReq | uTeK


    Skinfull wrote: »
    He had two sources... convenient as it may be, it is plausible. Buddy working as a BP engineer and a sister at the Haliburton site. Thats two people that were presumably in the know from the get go. The bit that jarred with me was the BP safety check guy who came onto the show, that was incredibly unlikely.

    I have to say though, the reveal of the date on screen was brilliant. *slow clap. Perfect setting. They have the hindsight to rip up big news stories from the last 2 years.

    What happened in 2010?
    Haiti earthquakes, Chilean Miners oh god... Wikileaks! He'll have a field day with that!

    It was a government official who came on the show, I believe the whole purpose is to get America back on track and show them what's wrong with the country, have 56 inspectors for 36,000+ Oil wells, it doesn't stack up.

    Oh, and I LOVED IT


  • Options
    #77
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,204 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Biggins wrote: »
    The result from American critics? The show is bad! They booo, they hiss… They try to find fault and insult the show for telling some things as they really are – not that the USA critics will admit to this!

    Its no wonder the American critics don’t like the show – they are upset that they blessed country has been insulted. Their revenge? To pan the show! O’ what a surprise! …Not!

    I simply don't buy that as being their motivation.

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • Options
    #78
    Klept0
    Registered Users Posts: 48 ✭Klept0


    Rather enjoyed this pilot, the first 10 minutes really suck you in. There were moments that I found a little unbelievable (staying on the phone line and admitting you were new to the job for example) but nothing that would polarize opinions on the show I'd say.


  • Options
    #79
    Skinfull
    Registered Users Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭Skinfull


    expectationlost wrote: »
    the only reason the beat everyone to the story was that they had two key sources ring him, i mean wtf, if he cultivated sources over the years, done previous work on the issue, had stringers in the right places these are the things I guess which would be the characteristics of a good producer not dumb luck..
    Cultivate sources? It was his sister!!! And his room mate from college who presumably he lived with for 4 years! How is that not cultivating a relationship?
    He admitted himself this had never happened to him before, so its not like he has a bunch of sources high up in companies across the country waiting to roll over for him. Now if this situation arises again, an he gets the same ease of access to info then fine... I'll play the sceptic card.

    CastorTroy wrote: »
    This show made me think I wouldn't mind going and watching the West Wing since I missed out on it before.
    I have seen TWW before and loved it, but yesterday I stuck in the S1 DVD for the first time in yonks. On a real Sorkin rush now! :D
    CastorTroy wrote: »
    I will keep watching and may even start to rectify not seeing West Wing or Sports Night

    I do recommend Sports Night but you will have to graft through the first few eps where a laugh track is used. Its quite jarring and a total turn off but stick with it its only the first ep or so, and you will be rewarded. Ahhhh Dan and Casey, how I miss thee!
    (Also... its on US netflicks for your viewing pleasure!)


  • Options
    #80
    CastorTroy
    Registered Users Posts: 28,794 ✭✭✭✭CastorTroy


    I'd say the reason for having the sources in it was just a quick and handy way to push the story along and to get him accepted by Matt. Now he's in I'd say it'll be more believable going forward. Not completely believable but more believable


  • Options
    #81
    Skerries
    Registered Users Posts: 12,304 ✭✭✭✭Skerries


    I miss Drop the dead donkey
    Untitled Image




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,651 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    So is anyone else willing to bet there will be an episode called - What kind of day has it been?


  • Options
    #83
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Skerries wrote: »
    I miss Drop the dead donkey

    I don't. :D


  • Options
    #84
    donnacha
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭donnacha


    enjoyed the first episode - though wish he hadn't cast emily mortimer in it.


  • Options
    #85
    cian1500ww
    Registered Users Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭cian1500ww


    This'll be a keeper for me I think, really enjoyed the first episode.


  • Options
    #86
    Basq
    Registered Users Posts: 43,774 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcG6yu1EBKQ


    Knew I recognised that voice... it was Jesse Eisenberg.


  • Options
    #87
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users Posts: 9,350 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    Really surprised with the favorable reviews in this thread. I've postponed my viewing of it because of the mostly negative reviews I'd read/heard.

    Will catch up on it tonight then.


  • Options
    #88
    Seren_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,810 ✭✭✭Seren_


    Hugely enjoyed the first episode. Jeff Daniels is great as Will, and I really think I'm going to love the character of Mackenzie - I totally agree with her view of making something good for 100 people rather than something bad for 1 million :p Didn't hugely care for the Maggie/Don relationship; I think it's something they could have maybe done without, but maybe it'll become more important. And nice to see Dev Patel as well. Seriously doubt that anyone would have thought he'd be the breakout actor from Skins when it started!

    I actually hadn't watched anything by Aaron Sorkin before this, so seriously thinking of checking some stuff out.


  • Options
    #89
    Basq
    Registered Users Posts: 43,774 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    Your Text Here wrote: »
    I actually hadn't watched anything by Aaron Sorkin before this, so seriously thinking of checking some stuff out.
    Definitely do...

    .. one of the finest writers working today IMO.


  • Options
    #90
    Jax Teller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,763 ✭✭✭Jax Teller


    Quite like the pilot . Its not something I'd usually be into either .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Gingervitis
    Registered Users Posts: 690 ✭✭✭Gingervitis


    I'm conflicted. I like watching it, but I also think it's a step too far in proselytising and lecturing. It's got that trademark Sorkin dialogue, which is fantastic, but you've got to step back from the grandiose speeches and realise that they are designed to reinforce your own beliefs. Sure, a lot of American media is ratings driven and less news than entertainment, but I'm not sure how this is supposed to be the antidote.

    Here's a more in depth criticism by that bastion of media spin and ratings whoredom, NPR:
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2012/06/23/155632386/sorkins-newsroom-is-no-place-for-optimism.

    Its salient point is that The Newsroom is more pessimistic than the Wire, because instead of recognising that problems in America are institutional and extremely difficult to change, it proposes that everything can be solved if we deliver a better kind of fact to the great unwashed and stupid masses, which will bring about a nationwide epiphany and make America "great again".

    I wasn't able to articulate this when watching the 2 episodes so far, but I've been a little disappointed that this series hasn't really tackled the bones of how a cable news network operates (working up sources, negotiating rights to interviews, and so on), just doing the West Wing again in terms of super idealism. It's entertaining in its execution, just the ideals are starting to jade me slightly. If we could put Aaron Sorkin's dialogue and idealism and temper it with David Simon's pragmatism (and real life experience as a journalist no less!), we would have a match made in heaven. It'll never happen though, given Sorkin's need for absolute control over everything he does.

    For feel good TV, you can't go wrong. I just wouldn't take anything more from it than that.


Advertisement