Support NeoGAF

[big ander]

I must be watching a completely different show to everyone else because I don't see a "great man" when I look at Jeff Daniels character. I see someone with extreme anger issues who cracks a tantrum when something he doesn't like happens. He's broken as shit.

That's what the show wants you to see though. A man who makes mistakes but ultimately wants to do good and can succeed at helping others.

 

[Dan]

I must be watching a completely different show to everyone else because I don't see a "great man" when I look at Jeff Daniels character. I see someone with extreme anger issues who cracks a tantrum when something he doesn't like happens. He's broken as shit.

As a sane human being, I agree. That's not what the show believes however. He's such a great guy his ex-girlfriend and sort of boss will debase herself to a whole company in order to convince them of how great he is. He's the show's hero. He cites the "great men" of journalism's distant past, while his boss compares him to the great men of journalism's most recent past. This goes hand-in-hand with the longing for the good ol' days.

And yes, he throws tantrums, but only when he's been wronged. He's clearly set up to be the hero of the show, no matter how insane that seems. He's so awesome he'll pay for an undocumented worker's cab fares and he doesn't even want credit!

 

[Devolution]

That's the main problem with Sorkin's "let's get shit done" characters. They're eccentric and wacky but they never show why they are a badass.

The West Wing heavily masks a lot of Sorkin Staples because of the directors and the context.

Yeah I thought MacKenzie and Margaret were going to be polar opposites that complimented each other. Instead MacKenzie turned into someone who seems out of her depth and the focus is on both women's relationship status with their fellow employees.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Yeah I thought MacKenzie and Margaret were going to be polar opposites that complimented each other. Instead MacKenzie turned into someone who seems out of her depth and the focus is on both women's relationship status with their fellow employees.

Both of which are completely, completely fucked up.

When Maggie gave Jim that line about how her relationship with Don works, I 100% lost any sort of sympathy or interest for that character. If the Maggie-Don relationship lasts past four episodes, I'm going to go insane. "This is how our relationship works..." is a clear character direction, not a mask for why this character has a flaw, which it was played off as.

 

[Devolution]

Both of which are completely, completely fucked up.

When Maggie gave Jim that line about how her relationship with Don works, I 100% lost any sort of sympathy or interest for that character. If the Maggie-Don relationship lasts past four episodes, I'm going to go insane. "This is how our relationship works..." is a clear character direction, not a mask for why this character has a flaw, which it was played off as.

Well main characters that are women can't be stand alone characters even in an office environment. Gotta be someone's love interest.

 

[PastorOfMuppets]

I still don't understand why this is a complaint. Why does dialogue have to be realistic? Nobody complained that the Gilmore Girls had unrealistic dialogue.

Because it's

1) Supposed to be set in the real world for the most part. If this was set in the Game of Thrones universe, I'd be fine.

2) It's ridiculously over the top. Some things that stick out in my mind: How fast the characters talk, how they are seemingly able to pull figures out of the air like it was second nature and how every piece of dialog in the show turns into a sermon.

 

[Devolution]

Because it's

1) Supposed to be set in the real world for the most part. If this was set in the Game of Thrones universe, I'd be fine.

2) It's ridiculously over the top. Some things that stick out in my mind: How fast the characters talk, how they are seemingly able to pull figures out of the air like it was second nature and how every piece of dialog in the show turns into a sermon.

This is my issue and makes the show seem more like characters reading from a random blog rant than actually engaging each other. I like what Sorkin has to say but I'm not at all immersed.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I feel like reiterating here that I don't really see it as preachy or sermony, just as bad writing.

 

[anaron]

I still don't understand why this is a complaint. Why does dialogue have to be realistic? Nobody complained that the Gilmore Girls had unrealistic dialogue.

Actually they did, and it's freaking dumb as hell. There's no requirement to like said style, but it's an intentional one that dates back to the 30s (Screwball-comedy, hello) and employed regularly throughout Palladino & Sorkin's work. When that style is well-done, it's usually something amazing to behold just on a technical level.

On The Newsroom however, its usage is grating as hell - mainly because, it's forced, over the top and just bad writing. Sorkin *somehow* seems to think the audience is comfortable enough with these characters that the show is at a point where enduring back and forth banter is endearing; it's not, and it won't be until the show has actually earned it.

 

[Emerson]

Male writers who can't write female characters well are at least a bit sexist. If you can't write for a kind of human being just because they aren't you, that's a problem. In the broad strokes, you write women the same way you write men: like humans. Instead, Sorkin's female characters in this show have already contradicted their established characters in order to push the plot forward.

And I think you're thinking we're accusing Sorkin of intentional prejudice. It's not that, it's just a problem with his writing that I'd assume happens inadvertently. I mean, at this point it's a problem he's conscious of. Writers know their own work. But he's maybe having trouble fixing it.

I really do not think it's appropriate to call writers who have poorly-written female characters "sexist." That word has such negative connotations about the person's attitudes and beliefs that seriously do not apply. That's what I have a problem with. Bad writing is bad writing. I don't think it justifies labeling somebody with a term like that.

As others have said, the point is less whether or not Aaron Sorkin is misogynistic, but whether the show is. I have little interest in exploring Sorkin's psyche. That's a dangerous path to take. I wouldn't even want to say that The Newsroom is consciously or purposefully misogynistic or sexist. But it is.

The show has waaaaay too much emphasis on "great men", and the crazy women that support, or thwart, them. That second episode utterly destroyed the Mackenzie character, having her debase herself to 'prove' that her asshole ex and boss is not in fact an asshole. Both of the main women on the show just happen to be extreme klutzes, emotionally unstable, and in constant need of men supervising or saving them. And of course this whole adventure is kicked off by a dumb "sorority girl" who is then brought back up in episode 2 for no other reason than cementing the impression that she was truly an awful member of society.

Based on the previews and the advanced reviews of the next two episodes, I don't think any of this is changing. The show undoubtedly has problems with women. I'll leave the judgments on Sorkin to those who know him.

I don't have any disagreement with any of this. All of these headlines and articles that I was responding to, though, are talking about Sorkin as a writer and as a person, not just the show. And that's what I had a problem with. I don't have issues with criticizing a show, because I see the same problems in this one.

 

[WillyFive]

There should have been someone in the team to criticize Sorkin and cut the fat. There is no reason for the director or someone to let the show go as-is.

 

[LumpOfCole]

Has anyone in this thread brought up the point that Emily Mortimer would make an amazing Doctor on Doctor Who?

I hope a 12th doesn't come too soon but when it happens, I hope Mortimer is the one.

 

[Oni Jazar]

1) Supposed to be set in the real world for the most part. If this was set in the Game of Thrones universe, I'd be fine.

2) It's ridiculously over the top. Some things that stick out in my mind: How fast the characters talk, how they are seemingly able to pull figures out of the air like it was second nature and how every piece of dialog in the show turns into a sermon.

Deadwood was set in the real world and its unrealistic, over the top dialogue didn't stop it from being cocksucking awesome.

 

[Hawkian]

The fucking dialogue in motherfucking Deadwood is realistic as shit.

 

[LumpOfCole]

I don't think Mackenzie is ruined as a character - I think her flaws seen in episode 2 were an exaggeration to humanize her after her clear mental superiority and superiority in control and presence were displayed in episode 1. Her klutziness with technology was absurd, though. I think her character is salvageable for the most part, and mentally is right in par with Daniels's character - she even proved that she is smarter and a better live guide for the show. If Mackenzie's way isn't followed, the lead man fails. Where she stumbled in introductions in the board room and technology, she makes up for in her unrivaled expertise in the control room.

Maggie, though, turned into a complete nutcase in episode 2. She is utterly crazy and was shown to be at the utter mercy of the two men wanting to claim her craziness. While I wouldn't say there was mysogeny on display in regards to Mackenzie, it was painfully evident in everything surrounding Maggie's character in episode 2. There is no part of her that is emotionally mature at all - it's even an insult to the men vying for her attention that they are written to be attracted to her.

Olivia Munn's character is the worst acted (or at least the worst spoken - maybe it's just me that I cannot stand her whistling out every other word between her teeth) - but so far the character at least has intellect written into it, and understands the dynamic of her newly appointed position at 9pm. She thinks for herself and, so far, we don't have to put up with her being another figure in the Newsroom whose purpose is to have a relationship dynamic.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

The fucking dialogue in motherfucking Deadwood is realistic as shit.

As my film teacher once said: Cocksucker is not a euphemism.

 

[Hawkian]

Watched again. I love the last 15 minutes, and especially the last 5 after "High and Dry" kicks in. Pretty clever use of that song actually, if you think about how how Will, Maggie, and Mackenzie are all feeling at that point in the story.

Bah. I'm gonna love this show. I'm not even going to try to defend it or claim it's going to be a hit or even attempt to speak objectively about it. I would make two predictions: 1) this will be remembered as one of the "filler" episodes, and 2) the show, even when it grates on you, will never be lacking inspiration.

 

[tuxor]

I am absolutely loving this show, regardless of the critics and/or the reality of the dialogue, etc. This also really makes me want to go into journalism, despite the fact that it'd never be like this.

 

[Hawkian]

My sister was an AP and then EP at CNN for a few years, and it's really interesting to hear what is and isn't realistic about their depiction. Sometimes she'll be unsure if something is completely made up or if it's actually changed considerably in the 8+ years she's been out of journalism.

 

[Emerson]

There should have been someone in the team to criticize Sorkin and cut the fat. There is no reason for the director or someone to let the show go as-is.

I could be wrong but I do not get the impression Aaron Sorkin the kind of guy to be receptive to criticism from his staff or crew.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Less subpar character BS.

More bully pulpit.

Thanks.

 

[WillyFive]

I could be wrong but I do not get the impression Aaron Sorkin the kind of guy to be receptive to criticism from his staff or crew.

It does't matter, letting people go without criticism is the same thing that lead George Lucas into making the Star Wars prequels as-is.

 

[Hawkian]

Less subpar character BS.

More bully pulpit.

Thanks.

You'll love the characters before you know it

It does't matter, letting people go without criticism is the same thing that lead George Lucas into making the Star Wars prequels as-is.

It really isn't comparable. Lucas at his heart is a screenwriting hack; he simply isn't gifted in that way. He has a stellar imagination and great drive to see big things done, but the art from adversity we saw in 4-6 was as you are implying a result of his writing take huge, ginormous punches from those around him before making it on the screen.

Sorkin is an incredibly talented writer who merely has a penchant to overindulge. Some of the best episodes of The West Wing made it from script to screen with every word having been scribed unadulterated by his pen. The best example of his work being heavily moderated by outside influences would be the first half of Season 1 of Sports Night, which is really awkward and frequently bad.

 

[Emerson]

It does't matter, letting people go without criticism is the same thing that lead George Lucas into making the Star Wars prequels as-is.

What do you propose people do about it? He's an egomaniac and your criticism will fall on deaf ears. Either do the job or don't. People won't criticize the director of this show for Sorkin's failings as a writer.

 

[Sqorgar]

1) Supposed to be set in the real world for the most part. If this was set in the Game of Thrones universe, I'd be fine.

Again, I don't understand. Nobody talked like Shakespeare wrote, and many of his plays were contemporary. Do we have to throw out soliloquies, monologues, asides, and apostrophes because we have such a narrow definition of what writing is that we are literally willing to dismiss thousands of years worth of writing techniques as worthless? Sorry, Antigone, I'm just not buying that anybody talked like that! (And what's with the creepy masks?)

Realism doesn't seem to be a valid argument when taken in the context of the history of writing - especially given that the most universally heralded dialogue writing in television has been extremely unrealistic. The cursing in Deadwood was realistic, but the meter and composition certainly were not.

2) It's ridiculously over the top. Some things that stick out in my mind: How fast the characters talk, how they are seemingly able to pull figures out of the air like it was second nature and how every piece of dialog in the show turns into a sermon.

I've said it before, but the best way to approach Sorkin is how one would approach a Platonic Dialogue. It's a discussion of ideals, morals, and philosophy that is framed as a debate within the confines of a story. Sorkin, I think, tries to combined it with "good drama" to various effects, but it's obvious that the purpose of his shows are the monologues that he builds up to (here's even an article he wrote: How to Write a Monologue Like Aaron Sorkin, by Aaron Sorkin - he brings up multiple references to music theory). You may find it a bit preachy, but so is The Republic.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I enjoy this show. I love how two characters falling for a female character that can demonstrate an ounce (or twenty) of immaturity or inexperience equates to misogyny. have you people ever worked in an actual office?

 

[Adam Scott Aukerman]

I almost gave this show a miss based on the snippets I'd seen of the many negative reviews the programme had attracted in advance, but I'm glad I didn't because Blunt and Daniels' characters are brilliant.

The show isn't without its flaws (its repulsive credits sequence, for one), but it has more than enough going for it.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I almost gave this show a miss based on the snippets I'd seen of the many negative reviews the programme had attracted in advance, but I'm glad I didn't because Blunt and Daniels' characters are brilliant.

The show isn't without its flaws (its repulsive credits sequence, for one), but it has more than enough going for it.

True, true.

The corny music is worse than the credits, though.

 

[Dan]

I enjoy this show. I love how two characters falling for a female character that can demonstrate an ounce (or twenty) of immaturity or inexperience equates to misogyny. have you people ever worked in an actual office?

That's misconstruing the criticism quite a lot. It's the net effect of the female characters being largely defined by their romantic relationships, and otherwise defined as being klutzes, making dumb mistakes that require men to fix and/or take the fall for, having hysterical episodes, debasing themselves for the sake of men, etc. Meanwhile, the men are white knights who typically know best.

It's not "ew, why do those two guys want to date that imperfect woman, fuck this show!"

I almost gave this show a miss based on the snippets I'd seen of the many negative reviews the programme had attracted in advance, but I'm glad I didn't because Blunt and Daniels' characters are brilliant.

That's not Emily Blunt. That's Emily Mortimer.

 

[Adam Scott Aukerman]

That's not Emily Blunt. That's Emily Mortimer.

So it is, I frequently confuse those two.

 

[Devolution]

That's misconstruing the criticism quite a lot. It's the net effect of the female characters being largely defined by their romantic relationships, and otherwise defined as being klutzes, making dumb mistakes that require men to fix and/or take the fall for, having hysterical episodes, debasing themselves for the sake of men, etc. Meanwhile, the men are white knights who typically know best.

It's not "ew, why do those two guys want to date that imperfect woman, fuck this show!"

It's really driving me away honestly.

 

[Clevinger]

That's misconstruing the criticism quite a lot. It's the net effect of the female characters being largely defined by their romantic relationships, and otherwise defined as being klutzes, making dumb mistakes that require men to fix and/or take the fall for, having hysterical episodes, debasing themselves for the sake of men, etc. Meanwhile, the men are white knights who typically know best.

It's not "ew, why do those two guys want to date that imperfect woman, fuck this show!"

There's only three female characters with any real story so far. Munn's character doesn't fall into what you're describing at all. Mortimer's does, but really only half the time so far. She was the complete opposite in the pilot. Pill's character is exactly what you describe.

I think it's too early to say, though the reviews don't really give me much hope.

I disagree completely with "meanwhile, the men are white knights who typically know best" though. Daniels' character is a complete asshole who does not know what's best. The only reason he's doing this great, great thing (at least as the show/Sorkin views it) is because Mortimer dragged him kicking and screaming to it. He's a narcissist who wants great ratings, even willing to prop up Sarah Palin in the process to do it, and it's Mortimer who's telling him he's an asshole for it and trying to move him away from it.

Dan or Don (the guy who refuses to button up his shirt) is abysmal though. I hope he jumps ship to that other show, but I'm sure he'll have a change of heart later in the season and stay.

 

[Devolution]

There's only three female characters with any real story so far. Munn's character doesn't fall into what you're describing at all. Mortimer's does, but really only half the time so far. She was the complete opposite in the pilot. Pill's character is exactly what you describe.

I think it's too early to say, though the reviews don't really give me much hope.

I disagree completely with "meanwhile, the men are white knights who typically know best" though. Daniels' character is a complete asshole who does not know what's best. The only reason he's doing this great, great thing (at least as the show/Sorkin views it) is because Mortimer dragged him kicking and screaming to it. He's a narcissist who wants great ratings, even willing to prop up Sarah Palin in the process to do it, and it's Mortimer who's telling him he's an asshole for it and trying to move him away from it.

Dan or Don (the guy who refuses to button up his shirt) is abysmal though. I hope he jumps ship to that other show, but I'm sure he'll have a change of heart later in the season and stay.

Too bad any excellent points Mortimer has to make or strong professionalism gets trumped by having to be whiny and throw herself under the bus so people will think of Daniel's character as less of an asshole than he really is.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Too bad any excellent points Mortimer has to make or strong professionalism gets trumped by having to be whiny and throw herself under the bus so people will think of Daniel's character as less of an asshole than he really is.

People work much better when they don't loathe the person they work under/for. She knows he was once a great/courageous journalist who has fallen into the pitfall of ratings-chaser and wants everyone to know that he isn't so much of an asshole as he is misguided and a little grumpy.

Regardless, the show being misogynist still just cracks me up. The EP is always regarded as courageous, but screws up sending two emails and is now seen as a bumbling fool with no control of her faculties. Apparently regarding her as doing more news in one night than another has in his whole career and taking bullets to make news is TOTALLY negated by missending emials. She still commanded the backend of the show and made the right calls about her staff failing to keep Brewer.

You guys are reaching. You can dislike the show and I understand why, but stretching on misogyny.

 

[Clevinger]

Too bad any excellent points Mortimer has to make or strong professionalism gets trumped by having to be whiny and throw herself under the bus so people will think of Daniel's character as less of an asshole than he really is.

That by itself would be pretty awful, but if it's the result of her guilt for cheating on him then it's not quite so bad.

 

[LumpOfCole]

Too bad any excellent points Mortimer has to make or strong professionalism gets trumped by having to be whiny and throw herself under the bus so people will think of Daniel's character as less of an asshole than he really is.

While I think Maggie is an example of a character written in a mysogenistic fashion so far (and I'm not one to use that term lightly), I think Mortimer's character is written much more sensibly even with an overcompensation of klutziness in episode 2 compared to episode 1. See my post above to see my reasoning.

I'm also 99% sure that Mortimer's character

Spoiler

had an abortion with Daniel's character's baby and that's why she feels overly guilty with him - I mean, everyone is thinking/knowing this, right?

 

[Cornballer]

New episode tonight:

The 112th Congress

Spoiler

Will apologizes on-air for past newscasts; Charlie is warned by management; Jim soothes Maggie during a panic attack; Will parades his dates in front of Mac.

 

[DrBo42]

I actually really liked Episode 2. It was frantic and ridiculous but still pretty entertaining.

 

[cackhyena]

It was balls, and turned an otherwise seemingly smart woman into a blithering idiot. Amongst other shitty things.


Sometime I'll tell ya how I really feel!

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

For some reason I'm still watching but this show feels like it was made twelve years ago.

I realized Sorkin is the Chris Claremont of television. I love Uncanny X-Men and The West Wing as perfect creations, but as time went on, their styles didn't change or evolve and so their current output is really difficult to watch/read.

That said, Claremont has no The Social Network, but at this point I think we can safely point to that as an aberration of quality.

 

[LumpOfCole]

New episode tonight:

Spoiler

Jim soothes Maggie during a panic attack

Spoiler

Maggie confirmed for ruined character.

 

[Hawkian]

Spoiler

Maggie confirmed for ruined character.

Uh, was it not clear that she was

Spoiler

predisposed to anxiety

from her first minute on screen?

I like her character a lot. She reminds me of Natalie <3 I expect there to be an episode where she shows what she is truly capable of and comes into her own as a producer, like Small Town

 

[ezekial45]

This episode is pretty great so far.

EDIT: Spoke too soon...

 

[LumpOfCole]

This episode is pretty great so far.

EDIT: Spoke too soon...

It was awesome up until Mackenzie's episode role became jealous ex-lover. Goddamn, let's please go one episode with her not turning to frays due to past or present relationship issues.

 

[Zeth]

Sorkin's technology attitude is hilarious. The wiki nerd joke made me laugh out loud after reading about his tech-ignorance last week.

Episode is good so far. Scathing reviews were from teabaggers?

 

[DrBo42]

Love the panic attack scene.

 

[MG310]

This is such an improvement - the show is fast paced, the dialog isn't.

 

[besada]

Yeah, I just heard myself say that.

 

[DrBo42]

This is such an improvement - the show is fast paced, the dialog isn't.

I don't like the bouncing up to the 44th floor/nightly montage. No one is saying anything remotely interesting in those scenes.

Edit: That joke was fucking amazing.

 

[Van Owen]

Is anyone buying Munn as some political analyst? lol