The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

squonk · 26-06-2012 10:29am

I really enjoyed this myself. I didn't expect to actually. It's the first Sorkin show I've really liked. I hated the Social Network. TWW was OK for what I saw of it but not spectacular. Studio 60 was just arsey really.

Emily Watson & Jeff Daniels are just very likeable and dong a great job in leading the show. Two things that sort of didn't cut it for me though were

1. Like was said earlier, the well inspector. Like I'm really going to go on a TV news show the day an incident happens saying I was inexperienced and therefore probably incompetent in the work I did which caused a major accident.

2. We have some evidence to implicate Haliburton but if we get it wrong then they'll sue us and own our asses big time. Ah hell, yeah, let's do it! I know the old guy running the network wants a ballsy newsteam but I'd imagine he's old enough too to know that it's great being daring when it pays off but you can get your ass handed to you big time too. It's all a bit convenient and contrived I think.

I like it overall and am willing to watch a lot more but I'm hoping that my gripes at depending on contrivances aren't fueled further as things go on.

Biggins · 26-06-2012 1:53pm

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

In the show, in the first few minutes the main character sitting as part of a panel being questioned, instead of continuing to play safe and give answeres that the audience wants to hear, actually tells them instead some home truths. He turns and becomes frank and honest. He has had enough of playing it safe. Its time for real world reality!

He riddles off within those few minutes, exactly why the USA in detail is no longer the greatest country in the world, in information and numbers to back it all up.

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 watched the whole show and thought it was absolutely brilliant. Gripping and very, very interesting. I also learned more in an hour about drilling, nature and natural disasters (often caused by USA companies!), than I have ever learned from any other show on air at the moment, in a same time period of air time.
You also have to listen to what talking there is to get the intelligence behind the plot and the show. This is a show that is not dumbed down trash. This is a show with intelligence for intelligent people.

This show is being panned by those that are upset Sorkin dare stated from the very start, some home truths.
I suspect European critics will be more honest as this show progresses – if the American network bosses allow it to continue over their ego’s and stupid false jingoistic *America is the greatest” vibes.

Want to know why America critics are bitchy about this show? Watch the first ten minutes of this class show and learn some real facts!

O’ and by the way…

…new figures show the programme, which is the latest creation of West Wing writer Aaron Sorkin, managed to pull in a respectable 2.1 million viewers on HBO last night.
That means it is one of the subscription channel’s most impressive openings in the last four years, garnering a larger audience than the likes of True Blood, Luck and Treme. And when its two showings are combined the numbers are bumped up by an addition 700,000.
Jeff Daniels stars as Will McAvoy, a mediocre primetime cable news anchor who politely goes about his job of conducting cliched interviews with blow-hard guests who have only a political agenda. Until one day he has a public meltdown – he’s mean to a college girl and says America isn’t the world’s greatest country – and hires a new producer to change the show into something meaningful. LINK.

Aaron Sorkin writes shows for those that refuse to accept the American dumb down reality rubbish that frankly is just pure trash – along with those that star in such crap.

The Newsrooms is just class, pure class. Tune in, learn much while being entertained intelligently and watch a work of art. Enjoy and tell the USA critics to go shove their biased reviews up their backside! To quote a now very famous film quote:

You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!

So the panning of intelligent and correct fact based television is additionally criticised like the bad vestiges and methods of a North Korean or Chinese government. They don’t like what they hear and to say anything against their nation which even though it might be accurate, is tantamount to distension! One mustn’t do it! So much then for free speech and America = freedom! It must be panned with invented excuses – if panned successfully enough, the sheep of a nation will believe/fall for the false slating and it will fall from air time into reel dust in a dark historic film archive room.

Sorkin does say that America is no longer the greatest nation on the Earth – but he also adds “It can be!” It remains to be seen if America can and is rising to that challenge. Judging by the bitter American critics and their hurt jingoistic feelings, the outlook is sadly doubtful. Its now down to the public instead to say different! We can thus only all live in hope…

Johnny Johnson · 26-06-2012 2:11pm

VinLieger wrote: »

****ing sky, well guess thats another tv show that i wont be paying to watch

And it will be the same for future HBO programming.

Why Sky are waiting two weeks I don't know. It's almost like they want people to download it

squonk · 26-06-2012 2:32pm

Biggins wrote: »

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

In the show, in the first few minutes the main character sitting as part of a panel being questioned, instead of continuing to play safe and give answeres that the audience wants to hear, actually tells them instead some home truths. He turns and becomes frank and honest. He has had enough of playing it safe. Its time for real world reality!

He riddles off within those few minutes, exactly why the USA in detail is no longer the greatest country in the world, in information and numbers to back it all up.

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 watched the whole show and thought it was absolutely brilliant. Gripping and very, very interesting. I also learned more in an hour about drilling, nature and natural disasters (often caused by USA companies!), than I have ever learned from any other show on air at the moment, in a same time period of air time.
You also have to listen to what talking there is to get the intelligence behind the plot and the show. This is a show that is not dumbed down trash. This is a show with intelligence for intelligent people.

This show is being panned by those that are upset Sorkin dare stated from the very start, some home truths.
I suspect European critics will be more honest as this show progresses – if the American network bosses allow it to continue over their ego’s and stupid false jingoistic *America is the greatest” vibes.

Want to know why America critics are bitchy about this show? Watch the first ten minutes of this class show and learn some real facts!

O’ and by the way…

Aaron Sorkin writes shows for those that refuse to accept the American dumb down reality rubbish that frankly is just pure trash – along with those that star in such crap.

The Newsrooms is just class, pure class. Tune in, learn much while being entertained intelligently and watch a work of art. Enjoy and tell the USA critics to go shove their biased reviews up their backside! To quote a now very famous film quote:

So the panning of intelligent and correct fact based television is additionally criticised like the bad vestiges and methods of a North Korean or Chinese government. They don’t like what they hear and to say anything against their nation which even though it might be accurate, is tantamount to distension! One mustn’t do it! So much then for free speech and America = freedom! It must be panned with invented excuses – if panned successfully enough, the sheep of a nation will believe/fall for the false slating and it will fall from air time into reel dust in a dark historic film archive room.

Sorkin does say that America is no longer the greatest nation on the Earth – but he also adds “It can be!” It remains to be seen if America can and is rising to that challenge. Judging by the bitter American critics and their hurt jingoistic feelings, the outlook is sadly doubtful. Its now down to the public instead to say different! We can thus only all live in hope…

Calm down! I think we all thought it was a good show and it's on HBO so, unless there are riots in the streets, they'll keep it going. They only pulled Luck becuase of the PITA gimps but animals were dying so in some way they had a point. I expect the democrats will like this show and the republicans, well, some of them will like it anyway. Besides, I don't think many people give a lot of heed to critics.

Ludo · 26-06-2012 3:52pm

Just saw this...class

Great stuff...RT @StanCarey: Sorkinisms: a 7-minute montage of Aaron Sorkin's recycled dialogue http://youtu.be/S78RzZr3IwI

TheIrishGrover · 26-06-2012 3:56pm

Deep breaths there Biggens

Yeah, I liked this show. It had me pretty hooked from the start. Have been waiting for this since it was announced. Loved The West Wing and thought Studio 60 was pretty good and had great potential. I think this has much more potential though.

While I liked the show a great deal it wasn't perfect, Emily Mortimer's monologues in his office were a little bit chest beating and flag waving for my tastes but that's just me. But then again so were many episodes of TWW.

It's got all the Sorkin trademarks: A very interesting premise; rapid, continuous dialogue - sharp, well written and informed; a large and likeable cast (With, thankfully, no "Mandy". TWW fans will know

). I VERY much like the idea that it will be using real world events from time to time to peg stories around. Apparently Summer 2010 - 2011 is regarded as the most interesting twelve months news-wise since the end of WWII (I can't remember where I read that, I'm sure someone else can tell us). As long as they don't put too much spin on the real facts. I loved TWW, one of my favourite shows. but if I had one fault with it it was that, apart from the last season with the fantastic Vinick, Republicans were generally portrayed almost comically as the bad guys. Obviously it was going to have a Democrat slant as it was set in a Democrat White House but sometimes you could almost see the Republicans twirling their mustaches.

So, VERY good show. Didn't capture me the same way when I saw The West Wing for the first time but it's only one episode in but GREAT potential. Great cast, very good writing. It's TV Sorkin.

Btw, I didn't see any of the reviews, just heard they were mixed. Were they THAT mixed/bad?

Biggins · 26-06-2012 4:25pm

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Deep breaths there Biggens

TheIrishGrover · 26-06-2012 4:39pm

don ramo wrote: »

hopefully for a bit more than 10 episodes,

Actually, this is the only problem I have with it moving to HBO. The production values will be high, the cast probably better than you could afford on mainstream TV. BUT there's that whole 10 episode season thing. And it's not only HBO/cable. Since the writer's strike a couple of years ago when many series had a 12-14 episode season a lot of others have gone down this path. What happened to 22-23 episode seasons? The West Wing had 154 episodes! Now, while many will argue that there was a drop in quality after season 4 the fact is that The Newsroom will have to run for 15-16 seasons to get there.

I suppose I'm just being greedy: quality over quantity etc

Otacon · 26-06-2012 5:15pm

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

...Now, while many will argue that there was a drop in quality after season 4...

The drop in quality wasn't because of the number of episodes, but the fact that Sorkin left the show after the fourth season.

don ramo · 26-06-2012 6:24pm

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Actually, this is the only problem I have with it moving to HBO. The production values will be high, the cast probably better than you could afford on mainstream TV. BUT there's that whole 10 episode season thing. And it's not only HBO/cable. Since the writer's strike a couple of years ago when many series had a 12-14 episode season a lot of others have gone down this path. What happened to 22-23 episode seasons? The West Wing had 154 episodes! Now, while many will argue that there was a drop in quality after season 4 the fact is that The Newsroom will have to run for 15-16 seasons to get there.

I suppose I'm just being greedy: quality over quantity etc

i dont mind the 12-14 episode seasons, i understand that it would be near impossible to make a 24 episode season of this quality, especially on a cable channel, thats why they pulled off TWW it was on network where a lot more money is available, also i can understand why there only making 10 episodes seasons on Game of Thrones with having to run 5 different sets in 5 different countries, plus the CGI, the costs must be unbelievable, but newsroom is just one set on some lot in hollywood, and i dont see it expanding to far outside of that,

Otacon wrote: »

The drop in quality wasn't because of the number of episodes, but the fact that Sorkin left the show after the fourth season.

and he made a very noticeable return for season 7

slavetothegrind · 26-06-2012 6:33pm

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

expectationlost · 26-06-2012 6:39pm

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

expectationlost · 26-06-2012 6:51pm

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

Biggins · 26-06-2012 7:04pm

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.

shrewdness · 26-06-2012 7:07pm

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.

expectationlost · 26-06-2012 7:11pm

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.

Biggins · 26-06-2012 7:30pm

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.

CastorTroy · 26-06-2012 8:59pm

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.

)

expectationlost · 26-06-2012 9:30pm

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.

Fishooks12 · 26-06-2012 10:06pm

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

FouxDaFaFa · 26-06-2012 10:49pm

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.

Basq · 26-06-2012 11:13pm

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!

WatchWolf · 27-06-2012 12:54am

I loved it.

FouxDaFaFa · 27-06-2012 5:35am

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:

sReq | uTeK · 27-06-2012 8:13am

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

The Black Oil · 27-06-2012 9:35am

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.

Klept0 · 27-06-2012 10:05am

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.

Skinfull · 27-06-2012 11:51am

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!

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!)

CastorTroy · 27-06-2012 1:29pm

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

Skerries · 27-06-2012 2:39pm

I miss Drop the dead donkey

VinLieger · 28-06-2012 3:46pm

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

Biggins · 28-06-2012 4:01pm

Skerries wrote: »

I miss Drop the dead donkey

I don't.

donnacha · 30-06-2012 1:53pm

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

cian1500ww · 30-06-2012 8:37pm

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

Basq · 30-06-2012 8:55pm

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

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

S.M.B. · 01-07-2012 1:02pm

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.

Seren_ · 01-07-2012 5:08pm

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

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.

Basq · 01-07-2012 8:13pm

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.

Jax Teller · 02-07-2012 12:11am

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

Gingervitis · 02-07-2012 4:53pm

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.

Richard Dower · 02-07-2012 9:08pm

Just announced!!....renewed for a second season.

Seren_ · 02-07-2012 9:20pm

@Gingervitis - Hmm, I totally understand what you're saying. As much as I think I'm going to love this show (which is kinda obvious to me as I already care about the characters after 2 eps), the fact that the general public is portrayed in the show as inherently stupid-ish (that word makes more sense than "stupid" for what I'm trying to put across in this context

) and unable to make up their own minds doesn't sit overly well with me. However, I can see what they're trying to put across with the show and its idealism i.e. the idea that a small group of people can try make a difference if they have the right resources (in this case, resources = captive audience). I would say it has much more of an optimistic tone than pessimistic though.

Really enjoyed episode 2. Think I know who I'm going to be shipping already

opr · 02-07-2012 9:37pm

Huge Sorkin fanboy who enjoyed the first episode immensely but that second one was pretty bad in my eyes. The whole introduction of the way the email thing works was awful and then for it to be used in such a blunt way was horrible. Some of the speeches didn't seem clever, motivation, needed but instead often just felt contrived and silly.

I still have high hopes for this show but that episode is one I would like to forget ever happened.

Opr

Biggins · 02-07-2012 10:22pm

Gingervitis wrote: »

...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...

So what if that was to by some miracle happen?

Gingervitis wrote: »

...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)...

Jeasus man - its only two episode in for crying out loud!
You want to try to pack more in within 48 minutes (approx) than 50 sardines in a can for 20?
The second episode has already fairly well shown how things can and do go screwy on live TV - and shown prior to that event, how such things might come about!

Gingervitis wrote: »

...It's entertaining in its execution, just the ideals are starting to jade me slightly.

Its personal viewers choice but I personally prefer a program with views - they then either solidify my own or challenge them and show me where I might be wrong.
Some shows without views are usually the reality rubbish - of which we have too much of by the way!
I personally don't like dumbed down fodder.

Gingervitis wrote: »

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

...And thats your right - however don't knock a TV show with (what I consider) a bit more intelligence, just because it is possibly different, challenges us and gives us perspectives - all with entertainment!

Your Text Here wrote: »

...the fact that the general public is portrayed in the show as inherently stupid-ish (that word makes more sense than "stupid" for what I'm trying to put across in this context ) and unable to make up their own minds doesn't sit overly well with me.

For me the show has already shown how people can be educated and/or given other views from news, that otherwise might leave them stranded and listening to the kooks of this world to coax them into their possible alternative wacko thinking.
...And lets be honest folks, people are stupid - we ALL are at times.

Your Text Here wrote: »

...However, I can see what they're trying to put across with the show and its idealism i.e. the idea that a small group of people can try make a difference if they have the right resources (in this case, resources = captive audience). I would say it has much more of an optimistic tone than pessimistic though.

Couldn't agree more.
I think that second episode intentionally or not, was saying "We can do better! Lets do it! (Even if we do have to hire a PHD professor with good legs - because people are stupid and human - and once we draw them in, then we might further educate them to some facts also.)

I have to say, having seen the second episode, I still like it.
Absolutely sure there is and will be folk that will not get it. A lot of them might fade away in numbers but those that stick with it , I hope will at least get a further induction in the media world as its surrounded by every day local and words events - and how sometimes one becomes the other - and then how its put across on camera.

With Sorkin (and he would say this himself and I think in his own words, he has) there is a lot of talk. However if one actually listens to the talk, you will often find a lot of intelligence behind it and its another means of being informed - not just to facts but as to how some characters opinions/positions come to fruition.

This show won't wash with some of the Play-station, fast food, me phone is going off again... generation to some extent.
Those that want a show that won't really interrupt their phone calls, their texts, their gaming, their social life and possibly their drinking sometimes - won't have time for this show I suspect.
(And networks have admitted creating and tailoring shows, dumbing them down sometimes for those of this constant 'going' lifestyle.)

Those that like to 'switch off' from the world - those that like to sit down and watch a show for once without home interruptions will (like the West Wing) love this show.
If you get up from this show while its on and return 3/5 minutes later, oft times than not you will have missed something of importance and then leaves you trying to catch-up.
This is a show that requires a 'Time-out'.
You NEED to sit down and watch it - no interruptions. Turn off the phone if need be. Don't watch it (if possible) till the kids are asleep. Wait till all your guests have gone and stop trying to catch moments of it while holding conversations with others in your living room.
...If you are doing all the above, your are not allowing yourself to get the full intelligence or insight of this show and/or not getting all the salient points of which in the show (and in real life too!), sometimes things in life can suddenly turn on.

The numbers for this show will drop - they probably have already.
Thats to be expected.
Now if those that stick with it regularly, do so? I suspect they will be much entertained and enlightened.
I certainly am so far - and its only two episodes in...

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...

shrewdness · 02-07-2012 10:58pm

Basq wrote: »

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

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

Thank you! That was annoying the hell out of me trying to figure out the voice!

kevohmsford · 03-07-2012 2:19am

Good episode this week. The only things I am not enjoying about the show so far is Emily Mortimer.

Gingervitis · 03-07-2012 3:10am

Biggins wrote: »

So what if that was to by some miracle happen?

Then it would be a miracle. That's partly why I used the NPR article as a critique. This, a station that's been under fire from conservatives for years, as well as getting less federal funding year on year, despite being arguably the most unbiased, factually accurate news source in America - see any parallels?

Biggins wrote: »

Jeasus man - its only two episode in for crying out loud!
You want to try to pack more in within 48 minutes (approx) than 50 sardines in a can for 20?
The second episode has already fairly well shown how things can and do go screwy on live TV - and shown prior to that event, how such things might come about!

Biggins wrote: »

Its personal viewers choice but I personally prefer a program with views - they then either solidify my own or challenge them and show me where I might be wrong.

That's the problem. I feel that this show will cater exclusively to the former, entrench your own biases and make you feel better about yourself because you "get it". I'm just stepping back and detaching myself from the rush of the excellent, razor sharp dialogue, and stirring speeches - which they undoubtedly are, don't get me wrong - and saying "yeah, but..."

Biggins wrote: »

Some shows without views are usually the reality rubbish - of which we have too much of by the way!
I personally don't like dumbed down fodder.

Neither do I. I never watch them.

Biggins wrote: »

...And thats your right - however don't knock a TV show with (what I consider) a bit more intelligence, just because it is possibly different, challenges us and gives us perspectives - all with entertainment!

Of course, it sounds like I'm knocking it, but it's still one of the best things on TV at the moment, a refreshing change from a lot of scripted dross and useless "other". I'm just saying that nothing is above criticism, and I had extremely high hopes for this show, something that tapped into the ethos of Stewart and Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity, instead of reinforcing the Left (elite and smart) Right (zealous but stupid) divide.

Biggins wrote: »

For me the show has already shown how people can be educated and/or given other views from news, that otherwise might leave them stranded and listening to the kooks of this world to coax them into their possible alternative wacko thinking.
...And lets be honest folks, people are stupid - we ALL are at times.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there, it's just that I don't see how that will automatically translate into a better America. This is encapsulated by the Dunning-Kruger effect (that better informed people are more likely to doubt themselves, while ignorant people are more steadfast in their beliefs).

This is where I'd put The Newsroom on the same shelf as Real Time with Bill Maher. Smart, funny, a different viewpoint to the mainstream media, but ultimately self selecting in its own audience. Its preaching to the choir to an extent, and I was hoping for something more transcendent.

I'm still going to watch it. Like I said, I like it, it's good entertainment, but no amount of me nodding my head along with a rousing speech is going to make me call this the best thing since sliced bread.

That answer was way too long and argumentative. Read the NPR article, it makes better points than I can.

Otacon · 03-07-2012 8:42am

Gingervitis wrote: »

...

Would you mind giving an example of where the show 'preaches to the choir'?

The reason I ask is, based on two episodes so far, I have yet to see a one-sided argument in the show. Each topic they have covered so far [illegal immigration, criticism of Obama within the black community, importance of ratings] has been argued by two sides. Like most issues, one side may have support from more people but both arguments are heard.

Now, there is no doubt the show has a liberal bias, as Sorkin has, however you can certainly see how intelligence is valued more than leaning left or right. One of the most poorly represented demographics in American TV is the 'intelligent Conservative'. For this show, he has decided to make his protagonist one such character. His intelligence and integrity are what should win us over, not his political leaning, and so far it has.

While I can see why some people may not like this show, to say its lecturing or 'preachy' is a mistake IMO.

Kirby · 03-07-2012 8:43am

Thoroughly enoyed the first episode. I would go so far as to call it excellent and the best pilot I've seen since Lost eight years ago. It was that good. If that opening scene didn't hook you......you may aswell turn off the television for good and return it to the store because you are doing it wrong.

However the second episode was a complete mess and has me worried. The scenes were shot poorly from a visual standpoint and alot of the actors were way, way overblown and hammy in their delivery.

I blame the director. It's was painfully obvious that somebody else directed the second episode and they made an unholy mess of things.

The storyline with his upstairs neighbours was poorly executed for the viewer. The scene where Mackenzie (btw I hate Americans using surnames as first names) accidentally emailed everybody in the company was just awful. If somebody walked into a work environment with that nonsense going on they would assume everyone was on drugs. It was not awfully written just terribly acted and sequenced together. Poor showing guys.

I'm hoping with a better man at the helm the third episode will return to form.

sink · 03-07-2012 9:04am

The second episode was nowhere near the quality of the first, but the even The West Wing had some poorer quality episodes and that is one of my favourite tv shows of all time. The trouble is TWW had 23 episode per season so you could easily forgive a couple of misses, with only 10 episodes The Newsroom doesn't have as much room to mess up.

The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Comments