Dominican Power
Member
Gaf is so cynical.
The Newsroom - Sorkin, Daniels, and Mortimer drama about cable news - Sundays on HBO
- Thread starter Cornballer
- Start date
- Status
Saw it this morning.. couldn't stop watching it. Late to work.
During the second half of that show I kept asking myself - how can I ever make anything that good?
It was sleek and tense. All the best parts of Sports Night with more realistic/grounded dialogue. And the quality of the cast is ridiculous.
During the second half of that show I kept asking myself - how can I ever make anything that good?
It was sleek and tense. All the best parts of Sports Night with more realistic/grounded dialogue. And the quality of the cast is ridiculous.
wormstrangler
Banned
Reading those review excerpts, I realise that I don't know if they're dissing this show or not...man, I feel stupid.
Why they got to use all this language, man?
Why they got to use all this language, man?
Yeaaaaaaah it's not for you. Alas, not all can be pleased. Sorry you didn't enjoy it
I'd stick around til episode 3 before jumping ship. This always hits me during his best moments. It's inspiring, good writing isn't always prized when it comes to putting something on the TV set these days, so when legit quality can be witnessed it really makes me think about what I'm capable of.
wait, what about ultra liberal? or anti-conservative commentary?
I'm pretty far right wing, but I wasn't offended - or insulted at all. In fact, the pilot started off with a pretty big swing at liberals. Then, at the end, Will recounts a story in which McKenzie's dad calls him a republican.
This was a show (the fictional "news night" program) about the news, being presented/filtered, by an affable a-hole. I didn't see any obvious leaning either way.
I think Sorkin knows better than to alienate half of the population - at least right away.
I'm pretty far right wing, but I wasn't offended - or insulted at all. In fact, the pilot started off with a pretty big swing at liberals. Then, at the end, Will recounts a story in which McKenzie's dad calls him a republican.
This was a show (the fictional "news night" program) about the news, being presented/filtered, by an affable a-hole. I didn't see any obvious leaning either way.
I think Sorkin knows better than to alienate half of the population - at least right away.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
I liked it for the most part. I thought the opening monologue was pretty good, (even though it was very soapbox-y and no one on the planet has all of those factoids floating around in their brain, which they can then rattle off on the drop of a hat) and I liked the end quite a bit. (though the fact that the smug dialog was written with 20/20 hindsight was sort of off putting)
Opening credits: Yaaaaaawn. Felt too long, music seems out of place, and I didn't like how we see each character as their name appears. It was very corny.
As far as characters go, I liked everyone other than Will. (and the old guy. He really bugged me.) He was a pompous unlikable asshole. Jeff Bridges' performance was pretty good I guess, but yikes, what an insufferable character. I really really did not like him; I literally cringed every time he came on screen. (and I don't have a problem with characters that we as the audience aren't necessarily supposed to like, such as Don Draper, Walter White, or Hannah Horvath. I'm okay with unlikable main characters, but this guy really takes the cake.)
I didn't quite like the direction or the score either. The score was too grand and sweeping, and the direction, while not terrible or anything, felt very unremarkable to me.
I did like seeing the behind the scenes stuff though. It's a world that I'm very unfamiliar with, so seeing the intricacies of the newsroom was very fascinating to me.
That's right. The show is apparently poised to fall of a cliff next week, and then tumble further down with each subsequent episode. I'm prepared for the worst.
I also had this problem, to a degree, and I also had a similar problem with the writing on Veep. The difference is: on Veep the writing is funny enough, and the characters aren't always portrayed as being the smartest in the room, that it works; on Newsroom it just comes off as smug and grating.
Opening credits: Yaaaaaawn. Felt too long, music seems out of place, and I didn't like how we see each character as their name appears. It was very corny.
As far as characters go, I liked everyone other than Will. (and the old guy. He really bugged me.) He was a pompous unlikable asshole. Jeff Bridges' performance was pretty good I guess, but yikes, what an insufferable character. I really really did not like him; I literally cringed every time he came on screen. (and I don't have a problem with characters that we as the audience aren't necessarily supposed to like, such as Don Draper, Walter White, or Hannah Horvath. I'm okay with unlikable main characters, but this guy really takes the cake.)
I didn't quite like the direction or the score either. The score was too grand and sweeping, and the direction, while not terrible or anything, felt very unremarkable to me.
I did like seeing the behind the scenes stuff though. It's a world that I'm very unfamiliar with, so seeing the intricacies of the newsroom was very fascinating to me.
That's right. The show is apparently poised to fall of a cliff next week, and then tumble further down with each subsequent episode. I'm prepared for the worst.
I also had this problem, to a degree, and I also had a similar problem with the writing on Veep. The difference is: on Veep the writing is funny enough, and the characters aren't always portrayed as being the smartest in the room, that it works; on Newsroom it just comes off as smug and grating.
EnderWiggles
Member
So the show turns to shit when Olivia Munn shows up? Sounds about right.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
She's apparently one of the only good things about the upcoming episodes.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
It's HBO, so I'm sure it'll happen eventually.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
Nope. At least, not in the pilot.
LegendofJoe
Member
I'm down with some Olivia Munn nudity, bring it girl.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I didn't much like it. Aaron Sorkin is obsessed with the movie Network, obviously, and seems to let that impede his ability to see that what was profound to say in 1976 is now commonplace in 2012. A reporter who doesn't get in the way or offend anyone, which is what Jeff Daniels' character presumably was before his tirade (a second rate "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!) would be much more shocking to see on tv today than any of his behavior during or after the lecture hall. The show also seemed sexist at times... "I'm taking you shopping!"... really? The whole thing just seems kind of out of touch and it's attempts at creating an authentic news room experience came across as very exaggerated. Some good lines here and there... but that's all.
Saw this last night and it wasn't as bad as I thought. It is so blatantly Sorkin that I don't quite get the hate beyond it being him and accuracy of news business.
It had a very similar feel to An American President
It had a very similar feel to An American President
With that cast it will happen in the most obscure way possible. The lead will go to a strip club or something.
I liked it. The characters seem to have good potential and the setting is ripe for good material. I hope the supposed drop off is only temporary as the story builds - since critics only saw the first 4 episodes - and that it begins to pick back up and peak toward the end of the season the way most HBO shows go.
I'll certainly give it at least 3/4ths of a season based off the strength of the pilot.
I mean any HBO veteran should know their programming seems to be built around slow builds and long arcs so giving up on their programs after 1 or 2 episodes is silly. I saw it with Luck which turned out to be a phenomenal show if you gave it 4-5 episodes before judging. Or boardwalk empire which literally had a two season arc that payed off as good as anything I've seen short of maybe The Wire.
I'll certainly give it at least 3/4ths of a season based off the strength of the pilot.
I mean any HBO veteran should know their programming seems to be built around slow builds and long arcs so giving up on their programs after 1 or 2 episodes is silly. I saw it with Luck which turned out to be a phenomenal show if you gave it 4-5 episodes before judging. Or boardwalk empire which literally had a two season arc that payed off as good as anything I've seen short of maybe The Wire.
I don't think this episode was necessarily sexist, but I am prepared for the worst. Sorkin being nostalgic for a time when the news was even more sexist than it is now is alarming, especially if he doesn't comment on the progresses we have made.
Cause then we get this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLduwiptrk
Cause then we get this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLduwiptrk
I'm not surprised in a supposed drop-off in quality of the next few episodes (would be comparable to the West Wing, which had a great pilot followed by some mediocre episodes, then the season hit its stride), but I am surprised Olivia Munn could be anything but terrible.
I want as much Alison Pill and Sam Waterston as possible.
I want as much Alison Pill and Sam Waterston as possible.
That's pretty damn good.
It's decent.
I don't think show is in anyway suggesting with it's message of harking back to the old days that they mean some will ferrell anchorman type work room. But instead that they appreciate and wish to emulate the older news model that existed before the foxnews model . A model that spoke with a voice by reporting the news using investigative journalism and presenting the facts instead of bringing in two partisans to scream at each other and have the network pretend to be neutral and give each argument equal weight even when one or both of those arguments are clearly and factually wrong.
Cornballer
Member
Not bad. I assume we'll hear about a renewal tomorrow unless HBO wants to wait for more data.
EDIT: Context from EW.com:
You're right, I don't know why I wrote "damn," changes the meaning of what I wanted to say.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Nope.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
The man spits out cold, hard statistics in a very objective manner and then juxtaposes that with some totally unverifiable belief that we should return to our golden age. Firstly, I would ask: A golden age for who, exactly? Middle aged white men like Jeff Daniels' character? Then I would wonder, since this man has every US statistic from our GDP to our mortality rate memorized, how could he have possibly overlooked information that he clearly knows, which is that we were never the categorically best nation in the world, in order to become nostalgic over some undefined period of time? On top of that, the writing is painfully self-congratulatory at times. I don't give a damn that Aaron Sorkin knows Don Quixote, nor that he knows things that aren't Don Quixote but sound like they could be. He sacrificed a chance to write a scene with honesty and realism because he had to draw the audience out of the moment and make sure everyone's aware of how well-versed he is in both literature as well as song lyrics. It was immature at times and, indeed, naive at others. I like Aaron Sorkin, but his oscar win has done nothing good for his ego.
ElRenoRaven
Member
So watching the first episode now. I have to say I'm liking it. Course I've liked Sorkin's other shows too. Glad to hear it did ok ratings wise.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Journalism has never been some beacon of truth. William Randolph Hearst prodded America into the Spanish-American War way back in 1898 because war sold a good deal of newspapers back then. And this is in 1898, when men wore suits and top hats and had nobility! When men were revered and acted with dignity! When things were better! So, again, I don't know what golden days Aaron Sorkin is wishing for other than some romanticized ideal he's fabricated that never actually was.
I watched the first 15 minutes and fell asleep. I really hate politics in general, and I actually completely agree with his whole tirade at the very beginning. Then Jeff Daniels comes back from his leave and I just conked out after that one dude bitched him out outside the conference room.
I guess I'll give it another shot tonight.
I guess I'll give it another shot tonight.
Just finished it, liked it very much. Interesting to see what future episodes bring.
Don't really understand the negative reviews..
I mean, they name drop Murrow and Cronkite with purpose. I don't think it's unclear that he means there's a pronounced difference between newscasting by those two and the modern 24-hour news culture we've got working for us today.
Um what. GOT does double that.
And of course it'll get renewed, at least until S2. If buzz doesn't pick up by then...
One thing I think people need to keep in mind in regards to "hindsight is 20/20" aspect of his show: Sorkin is trying to convey the message here how he thinks the news should have been reported during several major events of the past couple of years.
I wouldn't be shocked (and I might even bet on it if I was a betting man) that there were news outlets that had inside scoop on the BP Oil Spill and how it relates to government policies/Halliburton and did not report on it because of political reasons. That's what the cast was struggling with before they got on the air: be safe (Leno) or go report actual news (Murrow) no matter how politically fragile it is.
That's what I took from the pilot: this is how the news should have been and should be.
I wouldn't be shocked (and I might even bet on it if I was a betting man) that there were news outlets that had inside scoop on the BP Oil Spill and how it relates to government policies/Halliburton and did not report on it because of political reasons. That's what the cast was struggling with before they got on the air: be safe (Leno) or go report actual news (Murrow) no matter how politically fragile it is.
That's what I took from the pilot: this is how the news should have been and should be.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I wouldn't disagree, but I believe that both Murrow and Cronkite were actually as popular as they were partially because they were amongst the first journalists to openly inject opinion into their broadcasts. Even so, I get the point. However, I think Aaron Sorkin misses the point which is that journalism is no longer relegated to TV and we don't need a singular messiah of moral righteousness to save us from the mess of 24-hour news. The internet has stepped in beautifully where decent tv news stepped out. Aaron Sorkin seems sour to accept that and demands that there be a strong figure to rally behind rather than accept the decline of individualism in news delivery. Furthermore, I hope that the show details how McAvoy and company deal with slow news days, which is where the real bane of 24-hour news lies, and not just when a huge news story breaks. Overall, the show had some good moments, but I much prefer when Aaron Sorkin is just looking at an issue a la The Social Network and not necessarily proposing how he thinks it should be fixed a la The Newsroom. I'm going to keep watching and hope things pick up, but from what I hear the pilot is the high point of the series thus far :/
Well, I think you're right on the money about Sorkin having a bit of a vendetta against internet news. And you're welcome to disagree with the thesis he's positing about a moral anchor being justified as a... moral anchor in today's society.
Regardless, even if you don't subscribe to the impassioned arguments Sorkin is porting through the mouthpieces of his characters, I predict legitimately good television to be found here every week; even the weaker episodes in Season 1 of the West Wing outclassed nearly everything else on TV at the time.
I expect a Slow News Day episode, and I expect it to be very funny, so watch for that. Also, I'd put money on the Pilot not being the highlight even if the next three episodes are subpar- on TWW it went just like that (and the first few episodes of Sports Night are really awkward as well) but the Pilot episodes were quickly outclassed.
Regardless, even if you don't subscribe to the impassioned arguments Sorkin is porting through the mouthpieces of his characters, I predict legitimately good television to be found here every week; even the weaker episodes in Season 1 of the West Wing outclassed nearly everything else on TV at the time.
I expect a Slow News Day episode, and I expect it to be very funny, so watch for that. Also, I'd put money on the Pilot not being the highlight even if the next three episodes are subpar- on TWW it went just like that (and the first few episodes of Sports Night are really awkward as well) but the Pilot episodes were quickly outclassed.
I don't think anyone is under the impression that their hasn't been sleaze, propaganda and misinformation in the media. Be it government propoganda during war time to the numerous yellow journalist rags of the 1900's that played loose with facts and heavy on sensationalism.
Maybe he is being naive but to me he made it very clear what it was he liked about the past and I didnt once get the feeling he was saying let's move back to the 50's, it was completely utopic. More he was naming off things in the past he or the character found noble and laudable and feel that emulating those particular things could improve the nation.
Hence the specific mentioning of Murrow and Cronkite, not just saying "man, let's go back to the 50s." There were very specific examples given that I took as a means to contextualize exactly what he meant.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Wait, so now we're going to start using the "stop using big words" argument?
Who honestly cares? Does it really offend you that much that some dude dared to include something from the real world that the characters may very well be versed in into the dialogue? I don't get it. That's not talking down to the audience. That's not showboating. That's simply writing dialogue.
In what way?
Cornballer
Member
I thought it had a really good pace, I was all in on the second half of the episode especially. It did get a little preachy, but it's the first episode. I don't expect those kinds of speeches on a weekly basis.
I think you guys may be nitpicking a bit, I'll certainly be watching next week as well. It's kind of strange, with a lack of good tv lately(I can't think of a single series that I'm recording that's currently running new episodes off the top of my head) I thought there would be a better response.
I think you guys may be nitpicking a bit, I'll certainly be watching next week as well. It's kind of strange, with a lack of good tv lately(I can't think of a single series that I'm recording that's currently running new episodes off the top of my head) I thought there would be a better response.
Feeling a little pathetic at how many of these I saw coming...
Good writers borrow from other writers; great writers steal from them outright.
I'm surprised part of it wasn't dedicated to having a famous daddy and not being able to live up to his example.
(as cool as that was, half that stuff was small phrases like "not for nothing")
bernardobri
Steve, the dog with no powers that we let hang out with us all for some reason
Feeling a little pathetic at how many of these I saw coming...
Good writers borrow from other writers; great writers steal from them outright.
Self plagiarism is a double-edged sword.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I can't stand bowtie dude. Not only is his acting kind of bad, but the character's position and authority aren't very consistent.
And that Margaret chick is fucking terrible.
The editing and directing of the pilot is poor. But it's the pilot so I can let that slide. Also, is it just me or are the colours really drab and green? And the decor of the office is downright depressing. It makes the show look very boring, despite an engaging script.
And that Margaret chick is fucking terrible.
The editing and directing of the pilot is poor. But it's the pilot so I can let that slide. Also, is it just me or are the colours really drab and green? And the decor of the office is downright depressing. It makes the show look very boring, despite an engaging script.
The Dutch Slayer
Member
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you I can never unhear the west wing now
hahhahahaha man that took a long time to make so awesome, this is why I love sorkins work
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I care insomuch as it takes away from any grounding or realism that the scene has. I don't think I'm alone in saying that quoting Don Quixote seems absurdly out of place when trying to convince your news anchor to let you take on a position as Executive Producer. This may sound nitpicky, but Aaron Sorkin does it frequently. It stops being "simply writing dialogue" when the dialogue serves your own cleverness and not the honesty of the characters.
sqorgar said:
There are a bevy of ways to check facts and cut through rhetoric on the internet independently. There's no longer a need for a journalist to tell us what the truth is. I'm inclined to say that tv news has become so editorialized in part because it can't compete on a 1:1 level with the availability and expedience of hard info published on the internet.
Whoa. I disagree explicitly with everything you have said here. I hope that none of your implied advice winds up being reflected in the show.
"Bowtie dude," Sam Waterston's character, is the president of ACN (the fictional network); he outranks everyone in the building except the channel's corporate owners.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll