The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

SuperInfinity · 26-07-2012 12:41am

This is a stupid show. They're out to make the republicans look like fools. Liberals can laugh all they want in their own circle jerk blogosphere, but they have to admit that this is just plain wrong to have on a main entertainment show on tv. It's just not true to life, and it's just unfair.

Tristram · 26-07-2012 3:25am

don ramo wrote: »

people need to realize that now, this is the format of the show going forward its not going to change, the direction wont be tweaked, because its a success and has been renewed for a second season,

Not sure how accurate this statement is since almost all the writing staff from season one have been fired.

don ramo · 26-07-2012 10:34am

Tristram wrote: »

Not sure how accurate this statement is since almost all the writing staff from season one have been fired.

yeah but its sorkin who writes nearly everything, id say the other writers are there just to bounce ideas off, why pay 6 guys for saying yes or no, every episode bar ep3 have sorkin as the sole writer, and ep 3 is sorkin plus 1 other,

Tristram · 26-07-2012 10:40am

You're right. Sure they can't all be winners. I can see this getting dropped next season if there isn't a significant improvement.

touts · 26-07-2012 10:55am

The problem I have with the show is, like a lot of the people here, the balance. It is not clear if Sorkin is going for Serious political Drama (like the West Wing) or some sort of soap opera. The relationship stuff is overpowering some of the News. Last weekend's ep tried to cover the economic crisis, the comedic relationships and the revolution in Egypt. End result was some decent coverage of Egypt (especially the emphasis on the new government being not much better than the old one which most people will not have realised). A lot of slapstick comedy on the various relationships. But just 60 seconds on the Glass Steagall act. You could argue that the biggest issue for American, and western, viewers (the economic collapse) got relegated to a distant third because some demographic in the audience needed to laugh at Jim slapping his head off a couple of glass doors.

Also the constant attacks on the republicans is getting a bit tiresome. Yes some of them are dangerous idiots but the democrats have a few also. The west wing had a left slant but at least they lead you there slowly. The Newsroom is taking such a hard line I'm starting to feel sorry for Michelle Bauchmann.

However I'm still willing to give it time. They have tweaked Mac's Character and she isn't as annoying as she was in the first episode. There was a lot of tweaking in the early days of the West Wing (changing it to give more time to Bartlett and less to subjects like who is accidentally sleeping with hookers). That said the West Wing had 20+ eps to get it right in the first season. The newsroom (like many series these days) only has 10-12 and is already running out of room...

touts · 26-07-2012 11:07am

S.M.B. wrote: »

I don't think the news story/personal relationships balance within the show has changed all that much since the pilot. Some people seem to be very disinterested in the relationships side of the show but I'm perfectly happy with how they've been juggling the two. I certainly don't think they promised a completely different type of show within the pilot.

You don't have to be disinterested in the relationships if they are done right. The Josh-Donna-Amy thing for a couple of seasons in the West Wing showed how it can be done. It is just they are so forced and in your face in the Newsroom.

squonk · 26-07-2012 12:04pm

I complain about the show because I care about television. It's one of my hobbies and I'm on here a lot talking about lots of shows, praising some and damning others. I am watching the Newsroom because it has such potential and I want to see this show done properly. Normally I give a show 5-8 episodes to make a decision. Touch was so bad I gave up on it by Ep 7. Yes, I complained up until then but it was easy to see a few episodes in that the show was a completely lost cause for me.

The Newsroom is a bit different. They do some thing right. In general it's a good thing to highlight news coverage and show how people can aspire to produce good news. That's a great starting premise, as is the one that in producing good news, you're going to step on the toes of interested parties who are as powerful an influence as you are. There's some real dramatic potential there. There is equally potential in taking an entirely new group and watching them gel together amids the challenges of producing a new type of show.

The things the show doesn't do well are well highlighted on this thread. I'll add that a lot of the things that are bad are simply bad because they're being done in a way that is akin to using a sledgehammer to fix a picture hook to the wall. They'll get me for all of this season. I'm still unclear what the exact direction of the show is or if it'll change. If they carry on as is, then I'll check out early on in S2. By the way, just because a show gets to S2 doesn't mean it's quality. This is HBO so they are very open to giving shows the benefit of moving to S2.

People who complain aren't morons or idiots. One man's quality is another man's crap. I think there was mass complaining about Falling Skies here last year. Sniping at the show turned into a passtime for most people. The show deserved it. I think we're all more than happy to see a decent improvement this year. I'd say the same will be true of The Newsroom if such a thing happens.

VinLieger · 26-07-2012 4:24pm

SuperInfinity wrote: »

This is a stupid show. They're out to make the republicans look like fools. Liberals can laugh all they want in their own circle jerk blogosphere, but they have to admit that this is just plain wrong to have on a main entertainment show on tv. It's just not true to life, and it's just unfair.

Ill admit its maybe a bit unfair since hindsight is a wonderful thing but they have done their research and every piece of information for their stories has been factually accurate.
So yeah its unfortunate that that part is untrue to life as i would much prefer news organisations to print the facts rather than making up **** for ratings which is the whole idea behind the series

ixoy · 26-07-2012 7:17pm

Seems like they're continuing with some of the same issues in future episodes. Found the following leaked scene from the script of next week's episode:

[Open on ACN conference room]
Mackenzie: Okay, tonight we need to look at the unrest in Libya. We're now seeing sweeping change in the Middle East and we need to ensure that the viewer
is seeing the full picture.
Will: We need to separate out the facts from the rumour people. We're not like other news organisations - we're about the truth.
Maggie: Something stinks here.
Will: Stinks? Stink applies to the rotten lies of the Repubican Party, not to us.
Maggie: No I mean something stinks - there's a smell in the room! Do you get it? I can't be the only one to get it. Do you get it Jim? [turns to Jim with adoring eyes]
Jim: Eh yeah, I get it.
Maggie: Great! Someone else gets it.
Neal: Did you know that the cows of the world produce enough flatuence daily that they could power-
Will: Oh God, here he goes again.
Neal: No here me out! Scientists say that if we could harness the methane-
Will: And if you strike a match next to them you get a big explosion and fire. Speaking of firing-
Neal: Message understood - bovine blatherings are no more.
Mackenzie: Clearly we're not going to move on from this until we identify the culprit for the children here. Own up - who dealt it?
[Jim shrinks down in his seat. Maggie - aghast - widens her eyes and stares at him]
Maggie: Jim Harper [hits him] The man of my heart, did let out a fart! [Don stares at her]
Don: Inside voice Maggie.
Maggie: Did I say that aloud? [Flustered] Oh no, I said that aloud didn't I?
Don: Yes, you said it aloud.
Maggie: Oh! [She gets up and runs for the door. Unfortunately Skinner is walking in at the same time and hits her in the head]
Maggie: Ouch! [she clutches her nose]
Skinner: I'm very sorry, I didn't see you there. I was looking where I was going but where I was going was for that drink [grabs a bottle near the the door]
Will: I thought we were breaking the news, not our news crew.
Skinner: Will can you see me upstairs afterwards? For some reason the powers above have daft notions as to what does or does not constitute journalistic balance.
Will: I'm as impartial and non-biast as Switzerland.
Jim: Actually-
Will: Not now! Yes, upstairs - five minutes! Got it
[Skinner knocks back some whiskey and leaves]
Don [noticing Maggie still clutching her nose]: I'll take her to the first aid kit.
Maggie [through broken nose]: Id prfer ifsh Jim took me.
Don: What? Why?!
Maggie: He knowsh all about banged noses. I hit hish a few times now.
Jim: I'll take her now.
Maggie: You'll take me here in frontsh of these?
Jim: To the first aid room!
Maggie [laughing shrilly]: Oh yesh! Of course. HAHAHA. Oh my nose..
[Jim shrugs and leaves with Maggie. Don rolls his eyes and sits backdown]
Mackenzie: Can we focus please?
Will [staring at her]: I'm focused right now.
Mackenzie: Will! On the story, not my chest! You know this is why you end up on the front page of the gossip magazines.
Will: Well better to be on it for being honest rather than being deceitful.
Mackenzie: Oh is that a dig at me? Will Mc..
Don: Please! There are people dying in Libya! This is breaking news!
[There is a sound]
Will: Looks like Neal here would rather break wind than the news!
Neal: Burritos at lunch, not always wise when you've five minutes to eat them.
[Everyone laughs]
Mackenzie: Okay, so Libya..

Biggins · 26-07-2012 7:22pm

SuperInfinity wrote: »

This is a stupid show. They're out to make the republicans look like fools.

To be fair, given Romney's latest gaff over the Olympics and not being able to learn politician leaders names (or couldn't be arsed!), the Republicans are making themselves out to be stupid.

They don't need help!

Kirby · 26-07-2012 8:05pm

I'm not american so I shouldn't have leanings towards either party because it really doesn't concern me. But I do because one side is clearly bonkers. The stance that republicans take on certain subjects just makes me angry. Gay marriage, gun control, abortion. Didn't Newt Gingrich say he wanted a Moon Base for gods sake? It's hard to be fair and balanced when one side is made up largely of lunatics. Some of these people elected to congress claim to believe in creationism. People have the right to religious freedoms but creationism is just plain stupid. You may aswell believe in the Force.

Speaking of "Fair and balanced" have you ever sat down and watched FOX news? Jesus christ. Talk about an agenda. There are times when they don't even pretend to be impartial. Ever watched Bill O'Reilly? Thats an opinion piece show so you give him a bit of leeway but he just sits there and lies and then shouts at people who disagree with him.

It's not hard to make republicans look bad. You just show people what they do and say. I feel sorry for the sane politicians in the party that feel they have to go along with this stuff and tow the party line.

Handsome Bob · 26-07-2012 9:45pm

I haven't read too much into the comments made as I want to avoid spoilers but I agree with the general view that this show is at its best when focusing on the news.

I couldn't give a flying a fcuk about Maggie's love triangle or Will and McKenzie's will they won't they bollocks. I've only watched 3 eps but I don't think I'll watch another.

SuperInfinity · 27-07-2012 12:15am

Kirby wrote: »

I'm not american so I shouldn't have leanings towards either party because it really doesn't concern me. But I do because one side is clearly bonkers. The stance that republicans take on certain subjects just makes me angry. Gay marriage, gun control, abortion.

None of those things are "clearly bonkers" or close to it. The being against gay marriage one is one that I can understand and say there there are legitimate questions involved. Are they just prejudiced against gay people just because they're gay? That's not a bad question at all but the issue is more complex. However to just fob off "gun control" and "abortion" as being crazy bonkers issues, you aren't representative of any informed liberals out there. Some liberals I think are just jumping on a bandwagon and are a lot less smart and "progressive" than they think they are.

Kirby wrote: »

Speaking of "Fair and balanced" have you ever sat down and watched FOX news? Jesus christ. Talk about an agenda. There are times when they don't even pretend to be impartial. Ever watched Bill O'Reilly? Thats an opinion piece show so you give him a bit of leeway but he just sits there and lies and then shouts at people who disagree with him.

Bill O' Reilly doesn't lie, that is a poor criticism because you're not going to be able to point out clear instances of Bill O' Reilly intentionally lying on a really important matter. (oh I'm sure you'll find stuff on google now that I think about it, but you said "just sits there and lies", which is inaccurate no matter how you look at it). Glenn Beck was overboard IMO, he said many things I found really offensive and didn't like... this is why Fox News got rid of him.

Kirby wrote: »

It's not hard to make republicans look bad. You just show people what they do and say.

yeah yeah, this is according to you. A tv entertainment show should stay out of politics, and out of taking sides on political issues.

Kirby · 27-07-2012 1:03am

SuperInfinity wrote: »

None of those things are "clearly bonkers" or close to it. The being against gay marriage one is one that I can understand and say there there are legitimate questions involved. Are they just prejudiced against gay people just because they're gay? That's not a bad question at all but the issue is more complex. However to just fob off "gun control" and "abortion" as being crazy bonkers issues, you aren't representative of any informed liberals out there. Some liberals I think are just jumping on a bandwagon and are a lot less smart and "progressive" than they think they are. .

The issue's aren't bonkers, most republicans views on them are. I am not going to debate the issue further with you as you are clearly pro republican so no good would come of it. We would just go round in circles. I just find it hard to believe any rational person would defend a party who has so many questionable characters in it.

Duck Soup · 27-07-2012 1:10am

Still enjoying the show immensely. I can see the problems with it, but the good far outweighs the bad. The character/news mix - and interaction needs to be sorted out, but it's also true that if you don't give a damn about the characters then it's highly unlikely you'll give a damn about their travails in getting the news out.

Jeff Daniels is superb: Sam Waterston has never been better. Emily Mortimer's character needs to toughen up a fair bit - even allowing for team-building being a major part of her job, it defies belief that someone so thin-skinned and emotional can be the best damned executive producer in the whole world ever. Alison Pill/Maggie is really starting to grow on me. Dev Patel is a great actor and rather underused, though I don't suppose they can have all the characters coming to front stage immediately. Hopefully, he'll get his turn.

Two things in particular I like as the series is progressing. The trademark eloquent exposition in each episode (I appreciate that people tend to either admire the 'set-piece' writing or find it hokey and forced) and the show's habit of sneaking it details that you hadn't heard before - such as the defunding of investigations into Wall Street by politicians.

It's damned good and I'm pretty sure it's going to get better.

Duck Soup · 27-07-2012 1:15am

The other thing I'll say - which I should imagine the show's producers have figured out by now - is that the characters don't have to be romantically involved with each other or shagging like bunnies for us to engage with their lives and characters. Waterston's character, Charlie, for example appeals to you because Waterston conveys cynicism, idealism and humour with nothing more than a wry smile and vast amounts of alcoholic spirits.

Biggins · 27-07-2012 11:46am

SuperInfinity wrote: »

...Bill O' Reilly doesn't lie...

Here's that google search you mention:

https://www.google.ie/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enIE351IE365&sugexp=chrome,mod=15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Bill+O'+Reilly#hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enIE351IE365&sclient=psy-ab&q=Bill+O%27+Reilly+lies&oq=Bill+O%27+Reilly+lies&gs_l=serp.3..0i30l7j0i5i30l3.2688.3744.1.3911.5.5.0.0.0.0.183.635.0j5.5.0...0.0...1c.d-Dw4OI4Z-0&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=47ae20057da0496f&biw=1440&bih=785

Sorry, he does outright lie.
Many times it seems and direct to the camera.

Here is the fool at his worst!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7AGZlwLVKU

Here is a MASSIVE amount of his lies: http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/
(See the list, under "Hot Links" on the right alone!)

Simple and clear examples:
* http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/mainpage2012/oreillymedialie.html
* http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/mainpage2012/blameobama.htm
* http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/deathpenalty.htm
* http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/mainpage2012/obamadebtlies.htm

One of his possible biggest lies?: http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/mainpage2012/jailtimelie.htm

No wonder this is the result - Fox News The Least Trusted Cable News Network - and that shows in independent numbers!

As the last line of the above linked content goes:

Now read this carefully folks, because you will never see this reported by O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox.

He DOES sit there and lie, which is accurate no matter how you look at it

The overall quality of Fox News can be found here: http://foxnewslies.net/

PhiloCypher · 27-07-2012 7:54pm

Watching this because its Sorkin but not feelin' it at all so far , the female characters are poorly written caricatures who are competent only when the storyline demands it . The character dynamics are forced, quite literally in the case of Mac who tells Jim to get hung up on Maggie which he promptly does , I mean reallly ??? he's that suggestible ?. Their efforts to create a Josh/Donna type dynamic couldn't be anymore transparent. Another issue I have is the time jumps they make to take on certain topics and how this will distort characters relationships where we might end up in a situation where Maggie is unreasonably pissed off at something Jim did in the previous ep even tho timeline wise it happened a month ago.

Kirby · 28-07-2012 4:02am

Biggins wrote: »

facts

See, I would have posted all that as rebuttal to Mr Infinity's assertion that Bill O'Reilly doesnt lie.......but whats the point. Everybody knows O'Reilly is a liar. Anybody who defends him is just going to ignore the evidence anyway.

Basq · 28-07-2012 11:37am

Just watched the 4th episode last night.. a little behind!

But the Gifford bit at the end was truly superb!

Fishooks12 · 28-07-2012 12:02pm

I watch it, it's entertaining

But at the same time the whole liberal love letter is vomit inducing

mikemac1 · 30-07-2012 9:55am

Saw Episode 6

Very average and forgettable

I feel I've seen this before in the West Wing when Josh Lyman had a breakdown

They threw a few comments about the dating scene in the office which I've no interest in

The story in this episode wasn't particularly interesting, just awful smug at the end how the doctor/shrink tells the reason for the sleeplessness.

Smugness on a Sorkin script? :eek:

Tristram · 30-07-2012 1:50pm

"How are you still working here?" An excellent question. Another one would be how does this character exist? I am not sure sure how Maggie will become more of a joke.

I think the show is missing a trick by letting the stories provide the real drama instead obscuring it with poorly crafted melodrama. The show still has moments but they are growing farther and farther apart.

DeWitt · 30-07-2012 3:29pm

Sloan Sabbith is everyone's favourite character, right?

Tristram · 30-07-2012 3:30pm

DeWitt wrote: »

Sloan Sabbith is everyone's favourite character, right?

don ramo · 30-07-2012 6:37pm

DeWitt wrote: »

Sloan Sabbith is everyone's favourite character, right?

shes got one nice tongue thats for sure;)

HazDanz · 30-07-2012 7:28pm

The increased screen time for Sloan and the minimal input of Maggie in episode 6 made it much more watchable than the last episode.

VinLieger · 30-07-2012 10:55pm

HazDanz wrote: »

The increased screen time for Sloan and the minimal input of Maggie in episode 6 made it much more watchable than the last episode.

This, not sure if its the writing, the actress or a combination of the 2 but i cannot stand Maggie, i get instantly annoyed anytime she has dialogue.

leakyboots · 30-07-2012 11:58pm

don ramo wrote: »

shes got one nice tongue thats for sure;)

She has nicer parts

http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/funny-gifs-munn-tastic.gif

don ramo · 31-07-2012 8:57am

leakyboots wrote: »

She has nicer parts

and she supports PETA
olivia-munn-goes-nude-for-peta-s-new-anti-fur-campaign.jpg

Jimmy Iovine · 02-08-2012 3:29am

Maggie is such an annoying character. Everything about her is just pointless. The way she acts like a dope is ridiculous.

She's currently second to Joffrey Lannister in the list of characters that I want to punch. If she keeps up this nonsense for another few episodes then she may well take over the top spot.

I really want to like the show but the whole office romance thing detracts big time from it all. When they avoid that they can make some brilliant scenes (the Gabriel Giffords one being the main highlight), but they also make some really bad scenes (pretty much every scene between Jim and Maggie).

I still have hope for it though.

Kirby · 02-08-2012 8:02am

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Maggie is such an annoying character. Everything about her is just pointless. The way she acts like a dope is ridiculous.

She's currently second to Joffrey Lannister in the list of characters that I want to punch. If she keeps up this nonsense for another few episodes then she may well take over the top spot.
.

Yes but you are supposed to hate Joffrey. He is written and acted that way to achieve that hatred. We are supposed to like Maggie and think she is adorable.....so I think they are failing quite hard there.

_blank_ · 02-08-2012 8:39am

Kirby wrote: »

We are supposed to like Maggie and think she is adorable

Says who?

By my reckoning we are supposed to think she is a bit of a dim bint

S.M.B. · 02-08-2012 9:37am

I like Maggie!

You guys are doing it wrong!

VinLieger · 02-08-2012 10:19am

Des wrote: »

Says who?

By my reckoning we are supposed to think she is a bit of a dim bint

I disagree, mainly because Joffrey is a character i love to hate, and anytime i get to a chapter with him or scene on screen i enjoy hating everything he says and does, but with maggie its different i get the impression that the writers want us to like her because shes young and awkward but everything she does and says is just plain stupid that the hate is more an annoyed hate of "when the hell is she gonna get off my screen"

Pepe LeFrits · 02-08-2012 12:26pm

Episode six had very little of the Maggie/Jim stuff in it, are people happy now?

I thought it was excellent as usual; anything involving Will, Charlie or Sloan is generally gold, and I'm really warming to Don too. Loved the exchange between Charlie and Sloan after the Fukushima interview.

Fishooks12 · 02-08-2012 4:27pm

Think I'm on the verge of giving up on this. It's like all the bad parts of the West Wing rolled into one with none of the good

Kirby · 06-08-2012 11:33am

Please tell me that Americans didn't actually react like that. I mean in the deep south sure, but supposedly intellectuals backslapping each other over one dead arab? It was dramatized right? I'm not crazy? Random people shaking hands. Cheering and whooping. "Biggest story of a Generation". Is he having a laugh?

I quite like this show but to quote moleman, that was an hour of my life I wont get back. What a load of rubbish.

ixoy · 06-08-2012 12:57pm

I liked episode 6 but this? This was pretty crap.

Firstly, Don. It's been a long time since I've wanted to see a main character punched in the face so badly. What an arrogant disrespectful tosser he was on the plane. Loud and obnoxious and rude. When he told the flight attendant (who he had the nerve to call "crazy lady" and not be pulled up on it) that she'd regret not letting him off the plane... why would she? So that he, working on a cable news station, could get to work? What difference would it have made? Ugh. His grandstanding about mobile phones and pretty much his every word made me want to see him in cuffs.

Maggie: Shut up. Just shut up. How unprofessional was she to bring in personal relationships?

Skinner: If I was at a house party, on a free night, and was told abruptly to go to work, I'd tell you abruptly where to go. Is this sort of slavish attitude to work common in the States?

I really don't see the insanity to go to air thirty seconds before the president's address. Maybe I don't get the psyche of the US, or New York, but as above : biggest story of a generation? Really? *Really*? I thought the bigger one was 9 years and 7 months ago...

Worst episode yet.

06-08-2012 1:04pm

Is there even any point in watching the newest episode?

Basq · 06-08-2012 1:10pm

Can't help but think people might be expecting a little too much from this show..

.. it's not a patch on some of Sorkin's past greats, but it isn't bad!

Yes, it can be schmaltzy and overwrought but the cast are all decent in their roles.

If people didn't know it was created by Sorkin, I get the suspicion it would be hailed as the finest new show of the summer.

But hey.. maybe I'm just being naive!

Kirby · 06-08-2012 1:15pm

Well I don't think I'm expecting too much. There has been some terrific episodes in my opiinion. I really like the show but I didn't think that episode was representative of the normal quality of the show. It was just self important, self congratulatory wankery.

The correct response to that news? "Really? Oh good. He's dead. I suppose that is some small measure of comfort. Now, heres the weather with Jill"

It doesn't end terrorism forevevevever. It won't stop any future attacks. Al Qaeda won't disappear. It is beyond ridiculous to act like Jesus is back or aliens have landed or even if your team just won the super bowl. It was all just so lowbrow and juvenile. This show can do better.

ixoy · 06-08-2012 2:19pm

Kirby wrote: »

or aliens have landed or even if your team just won the super bowl. It was all just so lowbrow and juvenile. This show can do better.

Oh that reminds me of Neil. He really doesn't know when to be quiet does he...

See the thing is I liked the sixth episode, it worked well. Much more of that. This? No (although Jeff Daniels was good). Seems to be every second episode is poor - a frustrating mix.

MagicMarker · 06-08-2012 2:58pm

I love the show but I agree that that episode wasn't great, I almost vomited when Don was giving the news to the pilots.

Tristram · 06-08-2012 3:39pm

Basq wrote: »

If people didn't know it was created by Sorkin, I get the suspicion it would be hailed as the finest new show of the summer.

Honestly I think that if people didn't know this was created by Sorkin it's audience would be one tenth of its current size.

mikemac1 · 06-08-2012 3:52pm

Admiring slow awe struck shot of the pilots epaulets, his winged badge, his eyes, they killed him for you
Pass me the sick bucket

That was a poor episode, very poor

I still have zero interest in their dating lives, still confused by McKenzies strange accent and dislike the British lads mad random thoughts about aliens

Trying to think of something I liked in that episode, nope nothing coming to me

06-08-2012 6:08pm

Just finished watching it there. Have to say that I was a bit annoyed when they were saying the death toll of September 11th, 2001 and ended it with "Americans". It wasn't just Americans that died on that day - hell, there was a woman from my hometown (that I never knew personally) that was in the Towers, and probably many more from other nationalities.

The problem with the show is that it seems like they can't work the relationships properly. I watched the only season of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip recently and that dealt with the same relationship themes, yet handled so much better.

Duck Soup · 06-08-2012 7:55pm

Liked the seventh episode. There are still some severely clunky bits - the party to give you the timeline/timespan of the News 2.0 project; Will getting stoned (dramatically, what was the point of that?). But it's putting roots down. If Will is the conduit for the fine and noble speeches, Charlie is the final arbiter and conscience of the direction of the project. I also like the Deep Throat/Late For Dinner character introduction, as it raises a new wrinkle for the ACN: they're committed to unimpeachable twin sources for all stories. The likelihood is that LFD will give them exclusives from a single, anonymous source. Don't discount the possibility either that it's Her Upstairs setting Charlie and Will up for a major fall with a high profile false story (think Dan Rather and the GWB national guard records).

I'm sure that Sorkin is aware of the teething problems, which is why he's completely overhauling the writing team. What I would like to see more of is the nuts and bolts stuff of TV journalism. Shoe leather being expended, reporters in the field; the network of contacts. It's a little bit too deskbound and centralized at the moment. Part of what made the West Wing so compelling is that it made viewers feel as though they were really behind the scenes of American political life.

All that said, for me it's still one of the best two new shows this year, along with Veep.

Pepe LeFrits · 07-08-2012 9:47am

That was weak, but I'll give it a pass as the previous episode was super.

Please, please, please, have Lisa and Maggie elope together and run away to somewhere that isn't on the show.

Hyzepher · 07-08-2012 10:49am

Although the whole 9/11, Lin Laden thing was overdone - don't underestimate how big that story was to Americans when it broke last year. it was a huge deal and yes Americans do symbolise his death with paypack for 9/11 and they do consider it as an American tragedy. As would we if it happened here.

The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Comments