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
12467…33

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Richard Dower
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,634 ✭✭✭✭Richard Dower


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


  • Options
    #93
    Seren_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,810 ✭✭✭Seren_


    @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 :o) 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 :p


  • Options
    #94
    opr
    Registered Users Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    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


  • Options
    #95
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    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 :o) 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...


  • Options
    #96
    shrewdness
    Registered Users Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭shrewdness


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    kevohmsford
    Registered Users Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭kevohmsford


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


  • Options
    #98
    Gingervitis
    Registered Users Posts: 690 ✭✭✭Gingervitis


    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.


  • Options
    #99
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    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.


  • Options
    #100
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    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. :p

    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.


  • Options
    #101
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    Second episode went the way of the bad elements of the first. It's really painfully melodramatic at times, drama set around a newsroom rather than drama in a newsroom. Needs to drop all the personal relationship crap


  • Options
    #103
    meoklmrk91
    Registered Users Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭meoklmrk91


    I was disappointed in the second episode, I really had hoped for more considering the first episode. It was just all over the place, and didn't really hold my attention at all, hopefully next week will be better.


  • Options
    #104
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


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

    Personally I don't think it has gone there yet, but I think it is bordering on it and in danger of going there. It has definitely been critical of the mainstream media, and it has hinted towards blaming the public for putting up with it. Both criticisms are fine to make, but it does look so far like they are going to be central themes for the show, and it will be very hard to keep going to those wells without coming across as preachy.

    I'd also point out that for a program that espouses intellectualism so highly, it hasn't really displayed any. Talking quickly and throwing in lots of non-sequitur may create the impression of intellectualism, but without something substantive to back it up it's just as empty and vacuous as the tabloid ratings led journalism they are decrying.

    But with that said, it's early days yet. I've enjoyed the first two episodes a lot, and I'm looking forward to more. There's a ton of potential for a great show there.


  • Options
    #105
    Duck Soup
    Registered Users Posts: 3,996 ✭✭✭Duck Soup


    Loved both the first and second episodes. The barnstormer speech in the opener seems to have been a framer for both the premise of the show - this is what made us great and let's get back to that - and as a Sorkin lament/exposition on what ails America. The second episode's had to do a great deal of spadework in setting up the rest of the series. Although I agree the text thing was ham-fisted.

    Absolutely amazed it got panned by a lot of the critics. It's compelling stuff. Maybe those who say that American critics didn't like it poking a stick at the latter-day awesomeness of the US have a point. Jeff Daniels is superb and damn it, I'm going to say it. I like Emily Mortimer in this show.


  • Options
    #106
    Also Starring LeVar Burton
    Registered Users Posts: 18,503 ✭✭✭✭Also Starring LeVar Burton


    Just sat down to watch the first two episodes this morning and fell in love with the show in the first 5 minutes...
    Must get my hands on the first season of The West Wing...


  • Options
    #107
    Also Starring LeVar Burton
    Registered Users Posts: 18,503 ✭✭✭✭Also Starring LeVar Burton


    Just sat down to watch the first two episodes this morning and fell in love with the show in the first 5 minutes...
    Must get my hands on the first season of The West Wing...


  • Options
    #108
    Seren_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,810 ✭✭✭Seren_


    Internet/critc reaction for ep 2 seems to not be the best! Personally I enjoyed it a lot.


  • Options
    #109
    slavetothegrind
    Registered Users Posts: 2,789 ✭✭✭slavetothegrind


    as did i, it's a great show and whilst some aspects are a little annoying ( i'm looking at you emily) overall it is excellent.

    In fairness if you took all of the criticism of the show and moulded the next episode to suit do you really think it would be half as good?

    To those of you who haven't seen the west wing get the box set on amazon, it will reward you time and again, or every christmas in my case ;)


  • Options
    #110
    Gingervitis
    Registered Users Posts: 690 ✭✭✭Gingervitis


    Otacon 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.

    While I understand that the Intelligent American Conservative is quite the rare breed, it always seems to be characterised as a Democrat. I know that the Republican party has moved so far to the right as to be unrecognisable in the past decade, but that is a result of its base shifting or being coopted by evangelicals and xenophobes.
    Politics aside, I'll give you an example (or two.) Regarding the immigration debate, owing to a plot contrivance (which is slightly unrealistic - a sympathetic news network to Jan Brewer's entire office being completely shut out due to a staffer being slighted sexually, with no other Republican in Congress being available to comment), we are left with the most worst stereotypes of the Right - a parody of Ms South Carolina, a gun nut, and a crazy academic who can only spout racism - to defend the immigration billl ,as opposed to a pithy rebuttal by James, when grilling Maggie on her pre interview, and a softball by Will when trying rebutt the opponent of SB1040. Everything else screams how wrong this bill is, from the arguments put forward by the news team, to Will's epiphany at the end to support the out of work immigrant that Dev Patel puts forward.

    One of the criticisms of Sorkin is that he writes arguments that he will always win. That's fine if you're trying to reinforce beliefs, but not so good if you're trying to change beliefs.

    Again, for the third time, I stress that I enjoy the show. It's witty, smart, and makes a lot of sense to me. I'm just not calling it the best thing since sliced bread, or to be honest, any thing by Charlie Brooker. Maybe I prefer black humor to sincere idealism, because the latter is too aspirational.


  • Options
    #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Just finished watching it there, absolutely loved it. Jeff Daniels was absolutely fantastic. Definitely added to my to-watch list. Also I kinda thought that was Jesse Eisenberg's voice!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Gingervitis wrote: »
    While I understand that the Intelligent American Conservative is quite the rare breed, it always seems to be characterised as a Democrat. I know that the Republican party has moved so far to the right as to be unrecognisable in the past decade, but that is a result of its base shifting or being coopted by evangelicals and xenophobes.

    That's my point. The support the right gets from evangelicals and xenophobes is not all they receive. There are conservatives who simply believe in lower taxes and smaller Government but they are not heard over the 'louder' supporters of the Right. Here at least, we are given a Conservative who actually can articulate his points-of-view.
    Gingervitis wrote: »
    Politics aside, I'll give you an example (or two.) Regarding the immigration debate, owing to a plot contrivance (which is slightly unrealistic - a sympathetic news network to Jan Brewer's entire office being completely shut out due to a staffer being slighted sexually, with no other Republican in Congress being available to comment), we are left with the most worst stereotypes of the Right - a parody of Ms South Carolina, a gun nut, and a crazy academic who can only spout racism - to defend the immigration billl ,as opposed to a pithy rebuttal by James, when grilling Maggie on her pre interview, and a softball by Will when trying rebutt the opponent of SB1040. Everything else screams how wrong this bill is, from the arguments put forward by the news team, to Will's epiphany at the end to support the out of work immigrant that Dev Patel puts forward.

    How are 'News Night' a sympathetic news network? Anyway, clearly the stereotypes are there to be laughed at, this is still entertainment. However, underlying that, is Will's clear distaste for these sorts of views. He hamfistedly tries to get Palin out of trouble too. While he is on the same side of the argument, he is clearly embarassed by those who also occupy that side. Everyone can empathise with that.

    As for his support of the immigrant worker, I do not believe that reflects on his views towards immigration but actually stems from his renewed faith in humanity when his neighbours apologise and offer to pay for damages to his apartment. That's why he agrees to be 'in' with Mackensie.
    Gingervitis wrote: »
    One of the criticisms of Sorkin is that he writes arguments that he will always win. That's fine if you're trying to reinforce beliefs, but not so good if you're trying to change beliefs.

    Again, there is a liberal bias on his shows. However, I do not believe he actually crowns a winner IMO. He gives both sides of the argument and normally leaves it at that, with the audience left to decide how to take it.
    Gingervitis wrote: »
    Again, for the third time, I stress that I enjoy the show. It's witty, smart, and makes a lot of sense to me. I'm just not calling it the best thing since sliced bread, or to be honest, any thing by Charlie Brooker. Maybe I prefer black humor to sincere idealism, because the latter is too aspirational.

    I appreciate black humour, satire and cynicism as much as the next person, but a pinch of idealism and patriotism can also be downed in small doses [as this is the only show I watch that does that, then I can live with that.

    Anyway, we are two episodes in. Hopefully, it gets better as the second one left me a little flat.


  • Options
    #113
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Just watched the pilot, love it

    Great stuff from Sorkin


    I see a lot of posts here about Sorkin and liberal arguments
    Hmmm, this is an entertainment show, some of you might be taking it a bit seriously


  • Options
    #114
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,651 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Just watched the pilot, love it

    Great stuff from Sorkin


    I see a lot of posts here about Sorkin and liberal arguments
    Hmmm, this is an entertainment show, some of you might be taking it a bit seriously

    Yeah you need to watch the west wing, he doesnt try to hide it so much there, and it may be an entertainment show but sorkin is all about letting people now that hes a liberal and why hes right about everything


  • Options
    #115
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Watched the first 2 eps yesterday, loved it!


  • Options
    #116
    giftgrub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭giftgrub


    Had to smile at John Sergeant on the BBC Review show the other night.

    He said if anyone in a real newsroom acted out a pre-interview with pretend phones they'd be laughed out of it...

    Its ok so far, I've always liked Jeff Daniels but to be fair its more office drama than anything else...


  • Options
    #117
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    Just watched episode 3. Dullest one yet but probably plants the seeds of future developments. Jane Fonda is a good choice as the network owner. Then again, the ex-Mrs Ted Turner wouldn't have needed to do too much research.


  • Options
    #118
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,651 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Really enjoyed episode 3, was wondering how long sorkin could hold his tongue on the tea party :)


  • Options
    #119
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    That episode was really, really excellent. Much better than last weeks. They gave the reins back to Greg Mottola in this one, the guy who directed the pilot....and you could tell. It was alot calmer and better paced. Less frenetic. I also liked the way they handled Maggie's panic attacks. I thought her character would annoy the crap out of me because of the actresses mannerism's but I guess I might get used to her.

    The guy who plays Elliot is brilliant.

    "Elliot, tell us what we are looking at".
    "Well, we are looking at American democracy in action, Will, and it is really a beautiful sight to see."

    :p


  • Options
    #120
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    tumblr_m6vxthdwfa1qbvexao1_500.gif

    tumblr_m6vxthdwfa1qbvexao2_500.gif


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Gingervitis wrote: »
    While I understand that the Intelligent American Conservative is quite the rare breed, it always seems to be characterised as a Democrat. I know that the Republican party has moved so far to the right as to be unrecognisable in the past decade, but that is a result of its base shifting or being coopted by evangelicals and xenophobes.
    Politics aside, I'll give you an example (or two.) Regarding the immigration debate, owing to a plot contrivance (which is slightly unrealistic - a sympathetic news network to Jan Brewer's entire office being completely shut out due to a staffer being slighted sexually, with no other Republican in Congress being available to comment), we are left with the most worst stereotypes of the Right - a parody of Ms South Carolina, a gun nut, and a crazy academic who can only spout racism - to defend the immigration billl ,as opposed to a pithy rebuttal by James, when grilling Maggie on her pre interview, and a softball by Will when trying rebutt the opponent of SB1040. Everything else screams how wrong this bill is, from the arguments put forward by the news team, to Will's epiphany at the end to support the out of work immigrant that Dev Patel puts forward.

    One of the criticisms of Sorkin is that he writes arguments that he will always win. That's fine if you're trying to reinforce beliefs, but not so good if you're trying to change beliefs.

    Again, for the third time, I stress that I enjoy the show. It's witty, smart, and makes a lot of sense to me. I'm just not calling it the best thing since sliced bread, or to be honest, any thing by Charlie Brooker. Maybe I prefer black humor to sincere idealism, because the latter is too aspirational.

    I love this show. Watched the first 3 episodes last night and then cursed the fact that there were no more to watch. Yet.

    You make some fair points except the above in bold. You cannot say that the three individuals, (who were not supposed to be there in the first place), are not typical of the Republican voter. Granted they're not all like these stereotypes, but most are. You even admit that the Rep party ain't what it used to be. The Rep party is pandering to the uneducated American, the christian American and the racist American.

    Just think. What type of idiot person would vote for Palin (I can see Russia from my house), Bachmann (behind the bushes), Santorum, McCain, Gingrich, Romney and Bush?

    Aaaaaanyway. Daniels is brilliant and the tension between him and Mackenzie stopped my breathing a few times. There is some very subtle humour and the dialogue comes thick and fast.

    I'm watching The West Wing as a substitute while I wait for ep04. :D


Advertisement