The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Fishooks12 · 03-07-2012 10:12am

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

meoklmrk91 · 03-07-2012 10:35am

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.

stevenmu · 03-07-2012 2:22pm

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.

Duck Soup · 03-07-2012 3:07pm

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.

Also Starring LeVar Burton · 03-07-2012 3:49pm

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...

Also Starring LeVar Burton · 03-07-2012 3:49pm

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...

Seren_ · 03-07-2012 3:55pm

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

slavetothegrind · 03-07-2012 5:26pm

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

Gingervitis · 03-07-2012 7:12pm

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.

04-07-2012 12:12am

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!

Otacon · 04-07-2012 8:47am

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.

mikemac1 · 07-07-2012 11:31pm

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

VinLieger · 08-07-2012 9:56pm

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

MagicMarker · 09-07-2012 8:32am

Watched the first 2 eps yesterday, loved it!

giftgrub · 09-07-2012 10:38am

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...

FloatingVoter · 09-07-2012 11:16am

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.

VinLieger · 09-07-2012 12:05pm

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

Kirby · 09-07-2012 2:03pm

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."

Otacon · 09-07-2012 7:06pm

joseph brand · 10-07-2012 11:42am

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.

mikemac1 · 10-07-2012 11:44am

What accent is McKenzie trying to do?

As I understand she was born in America but grew up in the UK, I think that's right

I like her performance, just can't figure out her accent

S.M.B. · 10-07-2012 2:04pm

I think she was originally supposed to play it using an american accent but struggled with the pace of the Sorkin dialog.

I thought she just reverted back to her own accent.

Johnny Johnson · 10-07-2012 5:31pm

Isn't she supposed to have a British accent? That's the impression I got from episode one.

Duck Soup · 10-07-2012 5:31pm

The shape of the show is becoming apparent to me - of course, I could be completely wrong but it makes sense to me at this point.

The opening soliloquy in the first episode is Sorkin's lament about why the news has gone from informing us to scaring us. It ends with a call to journalistic arms to recapture that public service ethos.

The (fairly extensively criticized) second episode had a lot of spade work to do, setting in train the premise for the show - serious news anchor gets back to serious news - as well as setting up a good few of the sub-plots: Sam Waterston fighting on behalf of integrity at board level; romantic dalliances developing amongst the underlings; the commercial interests that drive and restrain news show directions.

The third episode has more of a hitting-its-stride feel, because I think that the scene-setting is done and The Newsroom has started to display its shape. Broadly, it's a vehicle for Sorkin to ask the questions in a fictional newsroom setting that he feels rarely or never get asked in real news programmes.

The shape of the show it seems to me will be that each week, across a relatively short first season, Sorkin will address a different issue that he feels is an important one that has gone undiscussed, underdiscussed or superficially addressed. Underneath this, the personal relationships and corporate power struggles will ebb and flow.

Like most Sorkin vehicles, his point of view is often the best articulated and done through the most credible characters. Having said that, he's such a good writer that it does make for some superbly rousing and engaging TV. I can perhaps see why some of the critics sniff and see it as polemic, but I can also see it attracting a solid and loyal fan base very quickly.

Also note that Sam Waterston's character is shaping up to be another Sorkin surrogate, so Jeff Daniels isn't left constantly spouting idealism on his own.

Gingervitis · 10-07-2012 7:42pm

joseph brand wrote: »

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?

I understand that Republican voters are by and large, not the most...respectable?...people, but surely there are even a couple of people who share Jeff Daniels' view and are also Republican? Just for the sake of balance. I know the days of Nixon and Goldwater are gone, but Will McAvoy is so isolated in his viewpoint, he might as well be Democrat. Given how the Right is quick to denounce RINOs, you think that airing their viewpoint would be some counterpoint to the greater insanity gripping the GOP.

Will concedes that the Tea Party started out as a natural spontaneous backlash to stagnation and Wall Street bonuses, but uses that as a platform to highlight and contrast their current agenda further. Of course, a lot of this is true, it's undeniable. The Daily Show doesn't even have to try these days, just let the mouthpieces put their own heads in a noose.

Intelligence is valued by the show, not political allegience. I just wish that intelligence was better shown on both sides of the aisle. By focusing on the crazies, and not (as far as I can see) airing intelligent arguments from conservatives akin to maybe David Frum, Ron Paul or even Charles Krauthammer (at a stretch), isn't The Newsroom partly falling into the same trap as the mainstream media it decries?

I've talked way too much about this now. Definitely my last word on it. Anything posted from here on out will be whether I think a current episode is good or not. Further conjecture or speculation regarding the series as a whole is redundant and circular.

I hear the next episode, concerning

a certain congresswoman in Arizona

will go someway to addressing editorial concerns on a massive breaking story, so I'm looking forward to that!

squonk · 11-07-2012 11:21am

Only up to ep 2 so far. I'll catch ep 3 tonight but I was disappointed with it. So much seemed contrived. McKenzie, nobody cares why you broke up with Will, really, come on! Get a grip the two of you. Some of the dialog was pure ****, the fake phones for one, and really was an element of why I disliked TWW, just more of Sorkin showing off how clever he is in that if you throw enough words into 30 seconds it makes people think you're smart where, in actual fact, your dialog makes you look like an arrogant, self-obsessed twat.

By all accounts ep 3 sounds pretty good though so it'll be a treat for later. I may have fallen in love with Emily Mortimer so that'll keep me watching for a while anyway

sadie06 · 11-07-2012 11:29am

Watched the first episode last night. Yes, it was very entertaining, but one thing really bugged both myself and my husband: the music.

Not only is it very naff, but it contradicts one of the basic messages of the show. The first episode heavily criticises the dumbing down of news by TV stations and suggests that in order to rectify the situation, producers, broadcasters and station bosses have to trust that the viewers are not really that stupid, and don't need to be spoonfed.

Why then, are we the viewers heavy handedly told what to feel by this ridiculous sound track? When the tone of the opening rant changes, the music enters in an extremely invasive 'true-story' movie fashion. Could we not have been trusted to absorb the scene without? It really took from the performance.

I hope this isn't typical of episodes to come (I've never watched TWW) or I think I might give it a miss. I've The Wire, Six Feet Under and Breaking Bad lined up for summer viewing. :-)

syklops · 11-07-2012 12:40pm

Up until quite recently I wanted to punch Aaron Sorkin if I ever met him in real life because he ruined television for me with the West Wing. Nothing I have watched since has come close, until this at least. The opening five minutes had me hooked and I watched all three episodes back to back.

I do have one minor criticism, and that is there were 3 very specific references to the west wing in episode three which I am not sure whether they are easter eggs for die hard west wing fans like my self, or, Sorkin just forgot that he used them before. I can't tell. Can anyone shed some light?

Kirby · 11-07-2012 12:59pm

syklops wrote: »

I do have one minor criticism, and that is there were 3 very specific references to the west wing in episode three which I am not sure whether they are easter eggs for die hard west wing fans like my self, or, Sorkin just forgot that he used them before. I can't tell. Can anyone shed some light?

Accident. Probably not an easter egg. Sorkin uses the same stuff over and over again. I mean, it's good stuff but I think he just forgets he's done it a dozen times already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S78RzZr3IwI

VinLieger · 11-07-2012 1:00pm

syklops wrote: »

Up until quite recently I wanted to punch Aaron Sorkin if I ever met him in real life because he ruined television for me with the West Wing. Nothing I have watched since has come close, until this at least. The opening five minutes had me hooked and I watched all three episodes back to back.

I do have one minor criticism, and that is there were 3 very specific references to the west wing in episode three which I am not sure whether they are easter eggs for die hard west wing fans like my self, or, Sorkin just forgot that he used them before. I can't tell. Can anyone shed some light?

It depends were they actions or pieces of dialogue? Because sorkin is notorious for recycling dialogue throughout his projects

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S78RzZr3IwI

Kirby · 11-07-2012 1:08pm

Got there first

VinLieger · 11-07-2012 1:22pm

Kirby wrote: »

Got there first

Bah, took too long searching for the clip

syklops · 11-07-2012 4:21pm

VinLieger wrote: »

It depends were they actions or pieces of dialogue? Because sorkin is notorious for recycling dialogue throughout his projects

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S78RzZr3IwI

Just found another one, so thats four. Four in one episode? Wow, he recycles so much he should get a green merit badge.

At the start of episode three there is building work going on upstairs and a slab falls down on the desk next to McAvoy as he works. Same thing happened to Joshua Lyman in TWW.

McAvoy is showing he named the names of everyone working on the staff and he says(and im quoting form memory)
McAvoy: Mohammad al Mohammad al Mohammad bin bazeer
guy: He moved to Fox.
McAvoy:Fox hired someone with more than one Mohammed in his name?

Josh from TWW(Season 4) "Well Mohammad al Mohammad al Mohammad bin bazeer doesn't make the distinction when he suits up in the morning"

Toby Ziegler from TWW(Season 4): Were you distracted by a bumblebee?
Mac( I think): Were you distracted by a bumblebee?

McAvoy:"The greatest demographic of Americans living in poverty is children"
President Bartlet:"For the first time the largest group of children living in Poverty is children"

There was also some stuff about the NEA(National Endowment to the Arts), which Toby had a run in with, but its not quite on the same scale as the others.

So it seems they are Sorkinisms. Is it sad I spotted all of these in a single episode?

FouxDaFaFa · 11-07-2012 5:26pm

John Gallagher Jr (Jim) is doing a live Q&A at 7pm our time here. Most likely the first in a series of interviews with the cast. You can submit your own questions at the above address.

Edit: They've already interviewed Sorkin.

thesultan · 14-07-2012 10:12am

Anyone watching it. The first show looks very good

VinLieger · 14-07-2012 11:37am

thesultan wrote: »

Anyone watching it. The first show looks very good

well we did spend the last few pages discussing the first 3 episodes so its afe to assume ...yes there are people watching it

Mr E · 14-07-2012 12:13pm

^^ thesultan's thread was merged with this one.

VinLieger · 14-07-2012 12:20pm

Mr E wrote: »

^^ thesultan's thread was merged with this one.

Ahh my mistake

darragh666 · 14-07-2012 7:48pm

I liked the first episode but the second and third episodes were dull.

At first i liked the fact that they are using old stories but it seems like they are just stating the obvious. Especially in the third episode with the tea party stuff.

I also find most of the characters boring.

However I will keep watching, the west wing really picked up in the second series and the first half of studio 60 was not great.

ixoy · 15-07-2012 2:06pm

Thought the third episode was much better than the second and, as ever, had some great speeches. McAvoy's opening one being a perfect example of what Sorkin can do so well. The characters are all highly intelligent and witty (I doubt most 26-year olds would quote Brigadoon references), which we sometimes need more of.

The one thing that bugs me is exactly what Gingervitis has been saying (hence my thanks): there really doesn't seem to be the sort of balance I'd hope for. Even McAvoy's Republican (allegedly) values seem to be more Democratic. Now maybe it's hard to find balance or maybe, and this is different, it's hard for Sorkin to find balance. It just grates with me: I already agree with a lot of what Sorkin has but I would like for something to be challenged and inform me of differing views. Surely there must be some there?
Here's one example: Trade unionism. The balance between the left-leaning newsroom (worker's protection) and McAvoy's conservative concerns (that they can inhibit job growth). Instead we're getting the easier picks so far.

Anyway, that irritating trend aside, it's good to see Sorkin back in action. Part of me feels sorry for the actors having to learn twice as much dialogue as would be normal, the other part jealous that the quality of it is above so many other shows.

VinLieger · 15-07-2012 2:45pm

ixoy wrote: »

The one thing that bugs me is exactly what Gingervitis has been saying (hence my thanks): there really doesn't seem to be the sort of balance I'd hope for. Even McAvoy's Republican (allegedly) values seem to be more Democratic. Now maybe it's hard to find balance or maybe, and this is different, it's hard for Sorkin to find balance. It just grates with me: I already agree with a lot of what Sorkin has but I would like for something to be challenged and inform me of differing views. Surely there must be some there?
Here's one example: Trade unionism. The balance between the left-leaning newsroom (worker's protection) and McAvoy's conservative concerns (that they can inhibit job growth). Instead we're getting the easier picks so far.

But hes making the very valid point that the republican party is a shadow of its former self, it used to stand for fiscal responsibility and small government but its been overtaken by people who balk at increasing tax on the 1% and yet demand the poorest in society to pay for their own incredibly expensive healthcare. And then theres the tea party who really dont have a clue how to govern and just like to shout and scream. Sorkin is trying to convey his worry through Will whos portraying an old school "truer" republican, and the worries alot of other older republicans also have of how radicalised the party has gotten and how far off its original agenda its staryed and i dont think that can be called un balanced

ixoy · 15-07-2012 4:58pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Sorkin is trying to convey his worry through Will whos portraying an old school "truer" republican, and the worries alot of other older republicans also have of how radicalised the party has gotten and how far off its original agenda its staryed and i dont think that can be called un balanced

I'd be interested then to see him debate the difference between his vision of a true Republican, stripped of the religious / cultural mores that are there now, with that of a Democrat. What he sees as the difference and why one espouses his beliefs more than the other. That could make some interesting debating on TV rather than cherry picking from the extreme edges that, rightly, deserve to be torn apart but aren't quite as challenging. Bring us his own views, stripped of bias as he is now pledging to do.

Basq · 15-07-2012 7:25pm

I enjoyed the second episode tbh... although McKenzie's scene were fecking irritating. How a girl who enjoyed so much success as a journalist can't send an fecking e-mail? Acted like a ditz for the majority of it!

Third episode tonight.

JP Liz V1 · 15-07-2012 8:32pm

kevohmsford wrote: »

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

Yes I agree I dont think she was the best choice to play the female lead opposite Daniels who is excellent

BTW it is Emily Mortimer plays MacKenzie MacHale not Emily Watson or Emily Blunt

VinLieger · 16-07-2012 2:46pm

Wasnt a great episode, really think this show is still trying to find its proper footing
It seems to me sorkin is desperate to establish backstory and relationships as quickly as possible, not sure why he dosent just let it happen slowly like he normally does but so far all that is feeling a bit rushed to me, specifically the maggie and jim stuff.

titan18 · 16-07-2012 3:37pm

I loved that episode. The ending was fantastic imo

MJ23 · 16-07-2012 9:55pm

Watching the first episode here now. Seems good so far, though Harry Dunne is some prick in it.

FouxDaFaFa · 16-07-2012 9:59pm

I thought that the drama with Will's lovelife was taking away from the pace until the big reveal at the end. Very interesting.

The last few minutes of the show with the Giffords news was brilliantly done. The fcuk-up of many news organisations reporting Giffords' death was a huge boo-boo at the time.

mikemac1 · 16-07-2012 10:11pm

Average enough episode, I've little interest in their dating lives

Superb last few minutes with the Coldplay song
The song worked well and all excellently put together, quality TV

Remember the rule; if your mother tells you she loves you, you still have to get a second source for confirmation

Ludo · 16-07-2012 11:14pm

Must say I really enjoyed the fourth episode. Some great lines. His one about how people think he is liberal because he believes hurricane are caused by high barometric pressure rather than gay marriage was class.

The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

Comments