The Newsroom - Sorkin, Daniels, and Mortimer drama about cable news - Sundays on HBO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Greyface said:
Yeah...

Does anyone complaining about the dialogue watch Bill Maher (or Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart for that matter)?
Click to expand...

Those guys can speak like that because they are reading from prompters and getting it all out in the time allotted before the commercial break.

It is very unlikely they talk like that outside of the show.
 
I think Jeff Daniels is holding the show together, perhaps along with Sam Waterston. The others, specifically those involved in the romance subplots are dragging the show down. Or maybe it's not fair to blame the actors... it's the writing of the romance stuff that is terrible. Still, this third episode was better than the second one for sure. They need to resolve the personal drama ASAP and just stick to the professional stuff about running a newsroom.
 
BertramCooper said:
Why the fuck does Aaron Sorkin hate women so much? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Man, he hates them so much that all the most powerful and accomplished characters are women! He probably just does that so that all the bad guys are women that the men have to rise up and dominate with their manly swagger...
 
Sqorgar said:
Man, he hates them so much that all the most powerful and accomplished characters are women! He probably just does that so that all the bad guys are women that the men have to rise up and dominate with their manly swagger...
Click to expand...

Mackenzie is just embarrassing. I almost feel bad for Emily Mortimer. That character is absolute shit. Maggie isn't much better.

These poor, bumbling women and their complete inability to keep their personal and professional lives separate. Thank God they have those strong righteous men around to fall on the sword for them.

And misogyny is hardly a new complaint against Sorkin.
 
BertramCooper said:
But seriously, Mackenzie is just embarrassing. I almost feel bad for Emily Mortimer. That character is absolute shit.
Click to expand...
I'd place the lion's share of the blame at Mortimer's feet. There's a way to play this character without seeming flighty and borderline incompetent. Actually, the show would probably be improved if Pill and Mortimer just switched characters.
 
BertramCooper said:
And misogyny is hardly a new complaint against Sorkin.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is a fairly new complaint. It largely began with The Social Network, to which Sorkin directly replied in Ken Levine's blog:

Aaron Sorkin said:
This is Aaron Sorkin and I wanted to address Taraza's comment. (Ken, I'll get to you in and your very generous blog post in just a moment.

Tarazza--believe me, I get it. It's not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes an equal. Mark's blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he's sure he's missing, came directly from Mark's blog. With the exception of doing some cuts and tightening (and I can promise you that nothing that I cut would have changed your perception of the people or the trajectory of the story by even an inch) I used Mark's blog verbatim. Mark said, "Erica Albright's a bitch" (Erica isn't her real name--I changed three names in the movie when there was no need to embarrass anyone further), "Do you think that's because all B.U. girls are bitches?" Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. It was a revenge stunt, aimed first at the woman who'd most recently broke his heart (who should get some kind of medal for not breaking his head) and then at the entire female population of Harvard.

More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren't women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)

And this very disturbing attitude toward women isn't just confined to the guys who can't get dates.

I didn't invent the "F--k Truck", it's real--and the men (boys) at the final clubs think it's what they deserve for being who they are. (It's only fair to note that the women--bussed in from other schools for the "hot" parties, wait on line to get on that bus without anyone pointing guns at their heads.)

These women--whether it's the girls who are happy to take their clothes off and dance for the boys or Eduardo's psycho-girlfriend are real. I mean REALLY real. (In the case of Christy, Eduardo's girlfriend so beautifully played by Brenda Song, I conflated two characters--again I hope you'll trust me that doing that did nothing to alter our take on the events. Christy was the second of three characters whose name I changed.)

I invented two characters--one was Rashida Jones's "Marylin", the youngest lawyer on the team and a far cry from the other women we see in the movie. She's plainly serious, competent and, when asked, has no problem speaking the truth as she sees it to Mark. The other was Gretchen, Eduardo's lawyer (in reality there was a large team of litigators who all took turns deposing witnesses but I wanted us to become familiar with just one person--a woman, who, again, is nobody's trophy.

And Rooney Mara's Erica's a class act.

I wish I could go door to door and make this explanation/apology to any woman offended by the things you've pointed out but obviously that's unrealistic so I thought the least I could do was speak directly to you.

Ken--Thanks for your really nice words and for giving me a chance to apologize again for my remarks back in 2005. Obviously a star writer on one of the best comedies of all time doesn't need to prove his credentials as a "real" comedy writer.
Click to expand...
So he WAS being misogynistic - on purpose. Because that's the world he wanted to convey. That was the world he perceived Facebook as being born from. That doesn't erase the strong female characters that he had in Sports Night, The West Wing, A Few Good Men, The American President, and even stuff like Malice and Studio 60.

(Note: Not every female characters has to be or even should be a strong female character. Damsels in distress are more realistic than Sorkin's dialogue.)

However, once he was branded as a misogynist, it became the narrative by which his later work would be judged, regardless of how accurate that impression is. Would you have jumped on the misogyny accusation train if you hadn't already heard someone else say it first? Probably not. That's because there have been four female characters in Newsroom. One of which is a damsel in distress - no argument there. The other is a competent executive producer who does more news in a day than most reporters do in their lifetime. One is an economist. And the last one is the female CEO of the multinational corporation that owns News Night (and Barbarella ain't taking shit from no one, man or woman).

People like to focus only on the elements that reinforce their previously held beliefs, like Mackenzie apparently being defined entirely in relation to her relationship to Will - ignoring the fact that the exact same thing is happening to Will. Remember, before she got there, he was a ratings whore who wasn't producing Real News(tm). He was also a total dick. But because she was there to set him straight (repeatedly, and on screen) he is growing into the competent anchor that he was destined to be. If Sorkin hates women, he must hate men just as much.

Sorkin is not a misogynist. People see what they want to see, conveniently ignoring everything else because someone told them that Aaron Sorkin hates women, so it must be true.
 
I'm losing interest after every episode. Granted, last night's episode was so much better than the week before, but I've discovered I don't really care about any of the characters and the love subplots are embarrassing.
 
Sqorgar said:
So he WAS being misogynistic - on purpose. Because that's the world he wanted to convey. That was the world he perceived Facebook as being born from. That doesn't erase the strong female characters that he had in Sports Night, The West Wing, A Few Good Men, The American President, and even stuff like Malice and Studio 60.

(Note: Not every female characters has to be or even should be a strong female character. Damsels in distress are more realistic than Sorkin's dialogue.)

However, once he was branded as a misogynist, it became the narrative by which his later work would be judged, regardless of how accurate that impression is. Would you have jumped on the misogyny accusation train if you hadn't already heard someone else say it first? Probably not. That's because there have been four female characters in Newsroom. One of which is a damsel in distress - no argument there. The other is a competent executive producer who does more news in a day than most reporters do in their lifetime. One is an economist. And the last one is the female CEO of the multinational corporation that owns News Night (and Barbarella ain't taking shit from no one, man or woman).

People like to focus only on the elements that reinforce their previously held beliefs, like Mackenzie apparently being defined entirely in relation to her relationship to Will - ignoring the fact that the exact same thing is happening to Will. Remember, before she got there, he was a ratings whore who wasn't producing Real News(tm). He was also a total dick. But because she was there to set him straight (repeatedly, and on screen) he is growing into the competent anchor that he was destined to be. If Sorkin hates women, he must hate men just as much.

Sorkin is not a misogynist. People see what they want to see, conveniently ignoring everything else because someone told them that Aaron Sorkin hates women, so it must be true.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the only possible reason I would ever interpret Sorkin as being a misogynist is becuase I was told he was a misogynist? I couldn't possibly have come to that conclusion based entirely on my own judgment?

Thanks for spelling it out for me. That's such a huge relief.

Sqorgar said:
I'd place the lion's share of the blame at Mortimer's feet. There's a way to play this character without seeming flighty and borderline incompetent. Actually, the show would probably be improved if Pill and Mortimer just switched characters.
Click to expand...

This is a hot load of bullshit. Emily Mortimer is a great actress. And it's not like she came up with that godawful e-mail subplot in the second episode. That was all Sorkin.
 
PastorOfMuppets said:
All I'm going to say about this week's episode is thank fucking Christ that Breaking Bad is back next week because now I'll have something to watch for the summer. I'm off this wagon. Good luck to the rest of you guys.
Click to expand...

Can someone please explain to me the incessant need to announce the discontinued partaking in watching a 60 minute television dramedy?

This endless sea of clichéd remarks with a pinch of entitled peril every week seems to breed wild in the Gaf forums....

Personally, if the synapses in your brain require you to post such drivel, at least take the extra effort to state why you were so disappointed. (Beyond the usual filler that seems to create a hive mind in some of these threads) The entire nature of these remarks are so over dramatic and adolescent it's quite....



...cute.

First post, glad to be a part of the community.
 
BertramCooper said:
Oh, so the only possible reason I would ever interpret Sorkin as being a misogynist is becuase I was told he was a misogynist?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that if you weren't told to look for it, you probably wouldn't have jumped to that conclusion in the first place. That's not the only possible explanation. The other is that you don't actually know what the word misogynist means and have confused simple, poor writing as a white man's endemic hatred and mistrust of women. Not all confused and bumbling female characters underwrite an insidious, deep seated discrimination against the female gender.
 
I don't understand the complaints about Sorkin's dialogue. "This comedy is unrealistic- no one has that many snappy one-liners and crazy banter just off the top of their heads!" Duh, it's entertainment; it's fantasy.
 
Amibguous Cad said:
I don't understand the complaints about Sorkin's dialogue. "This comedy is unrealistic- no one has that many snappy one-liners and crazy banter just off the top of their heads!" Duh, it's entertainment; it's fantasy.
Click to expand...

Suspension of disbelief is not a reasonable excuse for everything.
 
Sqorgar said:
I'm saying that if you weren't told to look for it, you probably wouldn't have jumped to that conclusion in the first place. That's not the only possible explanation. The other is that you don't actually know what the word misogynist means and have confused simple, poor writing as a white man's endemic hatred and mistrust of women. Not all confused and bumbling female characters underwrite an insidious, deep seated discrimination against the female gender.
Click to expand...

I don't know how anybody can watch this show without seeing the contempt it oozes towards the only two prominent female characters. It's gross, and makes an already tediously boring show actively offensive.
 
dead souls said:
I don't know how anybody can watch this show without seeing the contempt it oozes towards the only two prominent female characters. It's gross, and makes an already tediously boring show actively offensive.
Click to expand...

LOL. i would hate to read my Mad Magazine complete with Jaffe doodles next to your New Yorker, I am sure the substandard ink would rub off and you might see a crudely drawn naked woman in the margins.

Actively offensive is such an over the top description of the characterization of this show that I have actually memorized your name for further post dismissal. Your comment was that stupid.
 
This show is too mediocre to be getting such empassioned reactions.
It's a good show, I'm curious to see where it will go. Last night was sorta lame, just tons of exposition. hopefully an interesting arc will pick up from here and carry through to the end of the season.
 
I'm not sure this is the type of show you can properly judge after seeing the first 3 episodes. I have found it interesting enough to continue watching
 
Jtwo said:
This show is too mediocre to be getting such empassioned reactions.
It's a good show, I'm curious to see where it will go. Last night was sorta lame, just tons of exposition. hopefully an interesting arc will pick up from here and carry through to the end of the season.
Click to expand...

It should get interesting with the push from management for ratings and human interest pieces and the fight from Mackenzie (if she can manage to summon the brain power to put her shoes on the right foot, amirite /feigned misogyny) and Will (between philandering and emotionally abusing every woman around him) to keep it News Night 2.0.

of course the apparently highly competent owner of ACN and irs parent company will probably email the whole company her evil plans to oust Will and destroy his career! Oh the hijinks when women and technology mix!
 
What is someone supposed to do with a bleeding Mexican?

:lol

Holy Crap. This show. That's fucking shameless.
 
Sqorgar said:
I'm saying that if you weren't told to look for it, you probably wouldn't have jumped to that conclusion in the first place.
Click to expand...
You're making the false assumption that I was told the show was misogynistic before actually watching it.

That's not the only possible explanation. The other is that you don't actually know what the word misogynist means and have confused simple, poor writing as a white man's endemic hatred and mistrust of women. Not all confused and bumbling female characters underwrite an insidious, deep seated discrimination against the female gender.
Click to expand...

Please stop being condescending and telling me that I don't know what the word "misogynist" means. Jesus Christ.

But really, I find Sorkin's disgust with the "Worst. Generation. Ever." far more repulsive than his poor female characters. I'd love to know how my generation, who hasn't even had the opportunity to make a mark on the world, can possibly be considered worse than the generation of greedy, corrupt fucks currently running the planet into the ground.
 
Jtwo said:
This show is too mediocre to be getting such empassioned reactions.
Click to expand...
Well, it's no Pawn Stars, I'll give you that.

Personally, I think the Fourth Estate is perfect how it is and is in no way needing an idealistic kick in the ass. Fox News misreporting a Supreme Court ruling because they only read the first of three pages in an effort to report first is perfectly okay because that's what journalists are supposed to do - jump to conclusions and misrepresent the facts. I love that corporations and rich assholes are secretly working behind the scenes to control the information that gets reported and in no way am I even remotely interested in having such practices explored and exposed in the hopes that people will one day expect more from their journalism.

And geez, The Newsroom has a girl who couldn't send an email. I know how to use email. Why doesn't she know how to use email? I'm totally obsessed over this largely unimportant plot point! And the people are all really smart, talk too fast, and pull obscure references out of nowhere! Who has ever heard of Don Quixote? No one. That's not a book. What is that? Nobody talks like that! What a fucking joke this show is!

The Newsroom is about something. It's not about hating women and it's not about talking fast. It's one side of a debate this country DESPERATELY needs to be having - a debate we should've been having for the better part of the last twenty years. Maybe entertaining teenagers isn't the highest calling a tv show could aspire to.

BertramCooper said:
Please stop being condescending and telling me that I don't know what the word "misogynist" means. Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Well, you are using it wrong. What else am I supposed to think?

But really, I find Sorkin's disgust with the "Worst. Generation. Ever." far more repulsive than his poor female characters. I'd love to know how my generation, who hasn't even had the opportunity to make a mark on the world, can possibly be considered worse than the generation of greedy, corrupt fucks currently running the planet into the ground.
Click to expand...
Oh, I get it now. Sorkin hurt your feelings so you are lashing out. Do you think that if you can somehow prove that Sorkin hates women that it would invalidate his hurtful words to your generation? Perhaps maybe the reason his words cut so deep is because you secretly wonder if it is true? Maybe you could be doing more, but you don't, and that causes you to feel guilty when called on it?
 
Sqorgar said:
The Newsroom is about something. It's not about hating women and it's not about talking fast. It's one side of a debate this country DESPERATELY needs to be having - a debate we should've been having for the better part of the last twenty years. Maybe entertaining teenagers isn't the highest calling a tv show could aspire to.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the show does absolutely nothing to present this debate in a remotely logical or compelling manner. It shamelessly uses hindsight to critique the media in the clunkiest manner imaginable.

If Aaron Sorkin wants to be Howard Beale, I'm sure there are multiple networks willing to humor him. But for the love of God, don't take a soapbox and try to mask it as an hour-long fictional drama.

Sqorgar said:
Oh, I get it now. Sorkin hurt your feelings so you are lashing out. Do you think that if you can somehow prove that Sorkin hates women that it would invalidate his hurtful words to your generation? Perhaps maybe the reason his words cut so deep is because you secretly wonder if it is true? Maybe you could be doing more, but you don't, and that causes you to feel guilty when called on it?
Click to expand...

Nice straw man there, bud.
 
BertramCooper said:
Except for the fact that the show does absolutely nothing to present this debate in a remotely logical or compelling manner. It shamelessly uses hindsight to critique the media in the clunkiest manner imaginable.
Click to expand...


You might know this had you ever opened a book, but Sorkin shows never try to present a debate in a "logical" or "compelling" manner (which are other words for "dumbing down the plot so that idiots might get it"). The use of hindsight is unfair? Well, duh. Plato anyone? The very fact that teenagers and young "adults" can't get this show proves Sorkin's very point.

I shall now dismiss your retorts with my trusty scorn and dry wit, while basking in the glow of my unparalleled sophistication.

(Straw men are such fun!)
 
BertramCooper said:
Except for the fact that the show does absolutely nothing to present this debate in a remotely logical or compelling manner. It shamelessly uses hindsight to critique the media in the clunkiest manner imaginable.
Click to expand...
The second episode featured a guest who pulled out at the last moment in a petty attempt to hurt the show, and how they reacted to it by bringing on last minute stunt guests.

The second episode had a segment where Will added a softball Sarah Palin thing to the show because he was told that he was losing his conservative viewers.

The apology at the beginning of the third episode is nothing but one large scathing indictment against journalism.

Third episode talked about how they only gave three minutes to a car bomb because it was a relatively unimportant piece of news and that they didn't want to do any scare mongering. Also made a point out of the fact that both the hero and the villain were Muslim for the same reason.

Third episode talked about how Don's move to 10 o'clock was motivated to ratings and that he couldn't produce a good news program because if he didn't get good ratings (which his salary is tied to) he'd just get replaced by someone else. So he has to feature Natalie Holloway.

Third episode was entirely about how the tea party was elected and that the company that owns News Night had corporate interests in Congress and how that conflicted with the simple act of reporting against these people. Also made a point out of the Koch brothers, how they bankroll the tea party behind the scenes, and how they are too powerful an enemy to expose in public like that.

But that first episode used hindsight, so I guess you are right. The show's shown nothing remotely compelling or logical.
 
spindoctor said:
I think Jeff Daniels is holding the show together, perhaps along with Sam Waterston. The others, specifically those involved in the romance subplots are dragging the show down. Or maybe it's not fair to blame the actors... it's the writing of the romance stuff that is terrible. Still, this third episode was better than the second one for sure. They need to resolve the personal drama ASAP and just stick to the professional stuff about running a newsroom.
Click to expand...

These are my exact thoughts.

It's something to watch on Sundays though.
 
The first episode had great writing and always kept my interest, but it really is going downhill. I will still watch but 2 or 3 more boring episodes and I am out. I don't really blame the actors so much, I put it more on the writing, director and producers.
 
Surprised to see all the negative reactions. I'm pretty down on HBO lately, but I like this show quite a bit. The news stations are fucking terrible and need a giant kick in the ass.
 
While I like the premise of the show in bringing to light the responsibility of the media, with the exception of Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterstone exchanges, this show SUCKS!

The dialogue is way over the top in trying to be clever, but half of what is being said has no substance.

That love triangle is hollow and repetitive. I'm already sick of the "will she, or won't she" angle that they're hinting at.

Stupid casting decisions like Dev Patel make me question if they purposely wanted to pick the worst indian actor on the planet! I'm not even gonna touch the subject of Olivia Munn. Might as well have gotten Sasha Grey.

The whole exchange between Olivia Munn and Emily Mortimer was such bad writing that I was actually pondering if I know anyone who talks about their relationships to a complete stranger in such an un-intentional comic manner.

The first episode was strong and I thought it set up the show well. In 2 more episodes, I feel less interested in every character on the show. Not how you get ratings.
 
Been watching the show, and while I do like the majority of Sorkin's work, I still find this one to be quite preachy and almost non-realistic with the amount of facts/and snippy quips that Daniels' character often comes up with. I get that they are trying to paint him as a genius/prodigy type, but I feel like the writing is too stilted/scripted.
 
DarkJediKnight said:
While I like the premise of the show in bringing to light the responsibility of the media, with the exception of Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterstone exchanges, this show SUCKS!

The dialogue is way over the top in trying to be clever, but half of what is being said has no substance.

That love triangle is hollow and repetitive. I'm already sick of the "will she, or won't she" angle that they're hinting at.

Stupid casting decisions like Dev Patel make me question if they purposely wanted to pick the worst indian actor on the planet! I'm not even gonna touch the subject of Olivia Munn. Might as well have gotten Sasha Grey.

The whole exchange between Olivia Munn and Emily Mortimer was such bad writing that I was actually pondering if I know anyone who talks about their relationships to a complete stranger in such an un-intentional comic manner.

The first episode was strong and I thought it set up the show well. In 2 more episodes, I feel less interested in every character on the show. Not how you get ratings.
Click to expand...

Says Dark-Jedi-Knight....


...laughable.
 
BertramCooper said:
Why the fuck does Aaron Sorkin hate women so much? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

This shit is so ridiculous. I don't even really like this show or Sorkin as a person, and you're making me want to defend him.

Not being good at writing female characters (which isn't exactly true, since he's had great female characters as well) does not mean you hate women. It does not mean you're a misogynist. It means you suck at writing female characters.
 
DarkJediKnight said:
While I like the premise of the show in bringing to light the responsibility of the media, with the exception of Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterstone exchanges, this show SUCKS!
Click to expand...

That's what initially attracted to the show as well. That Howard Beale-esque rant that started off the pilot piqued my interest. I have issues with how much reverence they showed to old news broadcasters (attributing America's greatness entirely to the days of old is kind of over the top) but I can chalk that up to the Daniels' character being emotional. The real warning sign for me was that ridiculous plot point of having the new guy have a family member and a good friend working for Haliburton and BP coincidentally on the day of the Horizon Deepwater disaster. Great plot device for Hollywood-izing the news, but not great if your show is lording over the media by wagging it's finger at everyone for failing to report it.

At some point in the future, I will expect Patel's character to reveal that he is a distant cousin of Osama Bin Laden now.
 
Episode 3 was back to the premier's form imo. Thought it was great. I also love the fact that they're talking about real world news. Not enough people talk about the Koch family.

I'm not bothered at all about the love triangle either. It's not a big deal.
 
I liked this episode quite a bit, to be honest. The whole construction of the episode is really good. Having many subplots like that tied to the meeting about ratings was great, made for a referal event to not lose track.

The fact we had several events and not just one, fast forwarding from one to the next made the episode really dense. It felt like I had just watched two episodes back to back. The pacing is much better compared to the first two, thanks to those things.

The Tea Party is a tough issue to tackle, but I'm glad they centered the episode on it. As a non-American, it was interesting to see some light shed on it. It's probably even more relevant if you're from the States, I bet.

And I'm really surprised no one mentioned Jane Fonda being really good, being given a great role to work with and a fantastic monologue, then heated dialogue in her first episode.
"You wanna play golf or you wanna fuck around ?"
 
tumblr_lg9v91hB4j1qz7lxdo1_500.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

‘The Social Network Part II’ In Works At Sony With Aaron Sorkin Set To Write And Direct
12
191
DKehoe replied
I was banned on Reddit AMA
Drama  2
56
1K
Plies replied
  • Poll
"Calm down", "Relax", and their TRIGGERING effect.
Social Opinion Drama  2
64
1K
Eirin replied
Paapa Essiedu has been cast as Severus Snape in the HBO 'HARRY POTTER' tv series
News  3 4 5 6 7
326
19K
jason10mm replied
Mammoth Mice - Probably not what you think.
News Drama Science 
23
2K
Lunarorbit replied
Top Bottom