The Newsroom [HBO - Spoilers]

den87 wrote: »

I have season one on DVD at home, is it worth a watch? Another message board I read does nothing but slate every episode

If you like Sorkin's other stuff, odds are you'll probably like this too. It's preachy like a lot of his stuff, but when it's good, it's really good.

I gave up on this show due to its incredulously boring love angle in the previous seasons. Is there any hint of that this season?

The first two episodes have been brill...Love to see how the Neal stuff will play out.

Every year people hated on The Newsroom because that was the thing to do (didn't it invent - or at least make mainstream - the term 'hate-watching'?), but kept watching and eventually came around by the end of each series.

Now that there's only a few left, I think people are starting to realise that they'll actually miss it.

I've been in from the start (and this thread will back me up on that - I'm not just going full hipster here). The show has had its flaws during its run but did well to set out its stall early, establish characters that you may not recognise immediately but still connected with, and build decent, news-based storylines that gripped you in spite of itself while always remembering to stay light. It's been idealistic, it's been loud, it's been utopian, it's been preachy at times, but it's human and has something charming about it. Not in spite of the above points, but because of the above points. Here we have a guy (Sorkin) making the show he wants to make regardless of its spot on the pop culture charts. We've had actors who are all-in with the project and bringing something unique and unflinching to each role. And we've had interesting, if arguable, takes on popular news stories and the media coverage surrounding them along the way.

Personally, I don't need a TV show to reflect my views on the world to enjoy it. I'm confident enough to watch a show that clearly has a one-sided agenda and decipher the rights and wrongs of the points its raising myself. I don't watch TV shows for validation, I watch it to be stimulated. To be challenged. And yes The Newsroom has been challenging to watch at times, but is that a bad thing? I lose interest in a show if I feel it's trying to win me over with populist views. Calling out the Internet and coming down on the side of cable TV as a bastion for integrity in journalism certainly isn't the latter in 2014. His points are debatable, and what's the problem with having that debate afterwards as long as the core material is entertaining?

Instead people pushed away from The Newsroom because Sorkin didn't say what they wanted him to say about the world, when that should've never been the point to begin with. Now he's in full 'eff you mode' with this series and no doubt out to show the world how good it could've been before walking away from it all. We didn't understand The Newsroom, or judge it for what it was (instead judging for what we wanted it to be), while it was here. And in a few weeks it'll be gone and we can have no complaints. If we didn't like it all this time anyway, what's the problem? Only, turns out, we did. We didn't deserve The Newsroom.

Deleted User wrote: »

People pushed away from the Newsroom because it was a confused mess that couldn't decide if it was a generic sitcom or adult drama. It tried to be the best of both worlds but failed miserably.

As opposed to this series that's getting near-unanimous praise...which featured, in the latest episode, Don & Sloane trying to trick each other about whether they were in a relationship or not, spliced with one of the main characters going on the run from the FBI.

How's the above different from what you described? And yet nobody is pushing away now. Hmmm...

ixoy wrote: »

Actually people generally had perfectly valid arguments as to why they didn't like it. And to say it's because they resented being challenged with opposing views is sort of insulting. In fact, if you remember the thread here, what most people complained about were the "character" moments and what most people wanted more of were the journalistic insights and story lines. That's what we did seek out, contrary to what you're implying - we actually wanted those debates, those challenges but too often felt that comedic asides and tepid character moments were getting in the way of that.

That's not quite what I said. I said that people criticised it for the show they thought it should be rather than the show it actually is, i.e. what the makers wanted it to be. For example, I read a dissection of the last episode that was almost entirely based around Sorkin's contempt towards the Internet. They didn't like his stance, therefore, the episode was crap. That's a person who watches TV to feel validated.

And what is it that people are now commenting on? Don and Sloan. So is he really wrong for focusing on character bits? People who slate character-based shows in favour of more plot don't realise that strong characters drive good plots. The plot is nothing unless you're invested, unless you like and dislike each of the main players. I haven't read people saying that they're apathetic towards Will, Mackenzie, Don, Sloane etc*. That's investment (whereas, again, people who watch TV to feel validated think the writers don't want you to dislike certain core characters - which is hardly ever the case).

Sloan is savage hot but the acting leaves an awful lot to be desired imo. The monologues with Don in the restaurant about the Buffet were almost of Fair City standard.

Don is my new favorite character.

Wasn't as good an episode as 2 but still very good.
The interview with the Climatologist was hilarous

This latest episode was OK. Nothing stunning or anything but definitely better than most things in the first two seasons so that's still good. I love Sloane and Don. They're a great pairing and I think Olivia Munn is playing the character really well.

the only thing that was a bit hamfisted was the Grace Gummer scene where she was getting hounded over click-bait journalism. 20 minutes later ACN is about to be turned into a crowdsourced news outlet. I'd have prefered that be left a week or two to develope.