Support NeoGAF

[Sqorgar]

He's participating in some dull university panel discussion, completely bored and disengaged. No doubt he did absolutely no preparation and simply planned to coast through it. And then some slight nagging from the moderator whips him into a frenzy where he starts listing off several very specific world rankings, followed by a transition into a super cloying, super rehearsed remembrance of America when it was great. All with zero hesitation, zero stuttering, zero flinching.

Again, there was nothing remotely realistic about that speech. He's either the most unfathomably gifted extemporaneous speaker that has ever walked the planet (which given Sorkin's writing, is entirely possible) or he's totally full of shit and rehearsed it beforehand.

I now know that America leads in exact three areas: percentage of population incarcerated, people who believe angels are real, and defense spending (which is greater than the next 26 countries combined - 25 of which are allies). You guys can correct me, but I think he also said we were 7th in literacy and 49th in infant mortality. I also remember there being 38 people checking oil rigs, of which there are over 3500. Each person would need to check two oil rigs a day, six days a week, to check them all. To me, that's trivia. To McAvoy, that's a damning statement on the institution of a government that he obviously cares about.

Besides, who cares if it isn't realistic? Would you complain that the characters in Oscar Wilde plays are too witty? How about that Roald Dahl guy? What is up with all that whimsy? Too much god damned whimsy! It's obnoxious! And man, those Greek playwrights must've sucked, with all that stepping out of character and narrating directly to the audience. Or how the gods come down at the end and sort out all the problems in the play with a flick of the wrist? Lazy writing! And let me tell you, the dialogue in Waiting For Godot is so unrealistic.

This is a stylistic version of the real world in the same way that a... wait for it... monologue is a stylistic version of a person's thoughts and feelings. All of Aaron Sorkin's shows are stylistic and should not be interpreted literally. He may be working in television now, but he's a playwright at heart.

 

[BertramCooper]

I now know that America leads in exact three areas: percentage of population incarcerated, people who believe angels are real, and defense spending (which is greater than the next 26 countries combined - 25 of which are allies). You guys can correct me, but I think he also said we were 7th in literacy and 49th in infant mortality. I also remember there being 38 people checking oil rigs, of which there are over 3500. Each person would need to check two oil rigs a day, six days a week, to check them all. To me, that's trivia. To McAvoy, that's a damning statement on the institution of a government that he obviously cares about.

Besides, who cares if it isn't realistic? Would you complain that the characters in Oscar Wilde plays are too witty? How about that Roald Dahl guy? What is up with all that whimsy? Too much god damned whimsy! It's obnoxious! And man, those Greek playwrights must've sucked, with all that stepping out of character and narrating directly to the audience. Or how the gods come down at the end and sort out all the problems in the play with a flick of the wrist? Lazy writing! And let me tell you, the dialogue in Waiting For Godot is so unrealistic.

This is a stylistic version of the real world in the same way that a... wait for it... monologue is a stylistic version of a person's thoughts and feelings. All of Aaron Sorkin's shows are stylistic and should not be interpreted literally. He may be working in television now, but he's a playwright at heart.

There is nothing remotely artistic about turning a TV character into a blatant mouthpiece for your political and social views. And it's even worse when you do it with multiple characters on the same show.

 

[Blackhead]

There is nothing remotely artistic about turning a TV character into a blatant mouthpiece for your political and social views. And it's even worse when you do it with multiple characters on the same show.

The Wire.

Reaction to this show actually reminds me, in a few ways, of the media reaction to the journalism storyline in season 5 of the Wire.

 

[UltimaPooh]

There is nothing remotely artistic about turning a TV character into a blatant mouthpiece for your political and social views. And it's even worse when you do it with multiple characters on the same show.

 

[firehawk12]

The Wire

The difference is that in The Wire, the characters aren't always right... or even always heroes.

 

[UltimaPooh]

The difference is that in The Wire, the characters aren't always right... or even always heroes.

Niether is Will MaCavoy.

 

[Sqorgar]

There is nothing remotely artistic about turning a TV character into a blatant mouthpiece for your political and social views. And it's even worse when you do it with multiple characters on the same show.

You should think about the characters in a Sorkin show in the same way that you think about the "characters" in Plato's Socratic Dialogues. They exist to discuss philosophy, morals, and meaning in a hyper stylized discussion filled with lots of strawmen arguments and eloquent monologues that shut down the opponent's point of view with panache. Plato's purpose wasn't artistic, but intellectual.

The Wire.

Reaction to this show actually reminds me, in a few ways, of the media reaction to the journalism storyline in season 5 of the Wire.

You can't trust journalists to judge a show which directly criticizes them in an objective (or positive) manner.

 

[BertramCooper]

The Wire

I really hope we can differentiate between the use of allegory in The Wire and The Newsroom/Studio 60.

 

[bistromathics]

First ep I thought was ok...the preachyness wasn't as over the top as I was expecting, based on some of the critical response...it was mostly just coming from Will. True there were characters that gushed over him for his opening rant, but his old EP seemed pretty grounded in some kind of reality. Don or Dan or whatever wasn't necessarily the antagonist of the episode - he still came off as a pretty good guy - but not everyone was buying into the rhetoric, at least.

We'll see where it goes from here...I'm on board for now, though.

 

[Blackhead]

The difference is that in The Wire, the characters aren't always right... or even always heroes.

Don't want to get into a close comparison of David Simon's shows and Sorkin's shows as they are different. From the Wire, Major Colvin was 'always' right... and 'always' a hero.

I really hope we can differentiate between the use of allegory in The Wire and The Newsroom/Studio 60.

er, you went from mouthpiece to allegory... okay...

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Okay, I'm finally watching it.

And I could not get through that fucking ridiculous monologue without rolling my eyes a few dozen times.

Jesus Christ.

I knew you'd hate it. This is why we love you, Cooper. You hate things so amazingly awesomely.

No, serious, I love your posts.

 

[whytemyke]

I feel like at this point with Sorkin TV, you pretty much know what you're going to get. Either you enjoy it now or you don't, but I don't for the life of me understand why people who clearly are not fans of his hyperbolic, self-congratulatory-liberalism, "smartest kid in the classroom" schtick still watch hoping something else happens.

This isn't to be one of those guys who sits and cries about everyone slamming his show. I'm just saying... I knew exactly what it was when I started watching and it lived up/down to every single expectation. Oh well.

I wonder if there's a correlation between Sorkin letting his characters sex up and how bad the writing is. West Wing didn't have any hanky panky with the lead characters, and it was awesome. All his other shows? Yeahhhhh...

 

[firehawk12]

Don't want to get into a close comparison of David Simon's shows and Sorkin's shows as they are different. From the Wire, Major Colvin was 'always' right... and 'always' a hero.

Are you kidding? New Hamsterdam was a massive failure and essentially led to him being forced to retire... only to start a school program that was then cut by the mayor.

I know it's not fair to judge The Newsroom on the critics reviews of the first four episodes, but I don't get the impression that McAvoy or anyone on the team will suffer any real set back for standing up for their principals. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but that's just not the impression that I have of the show.

Like I said, if he makes the right call but get savaged for it - in a genuine way - then I'll probably be more on board with the "always right" attitude that the pilot exudes.

I wonder if there's a correlation between Sorkin letting his characters sex up and how bad the writing is. West Wing didn't have any hanky panky with the lead characters, and it was awesome. All his other shows? Yeahhhhh...

Err, TWW had plenty. Josh and Donny being the key one, but also Charlie and Zoey.

 

[oneils]

I can't imagine you'd get anything out of this then- it's the most focused on the 4th estate conceptually of any show ever What did you enjoy about it, if anything?

Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterston. I just think they are great actors. Good to see them on TV. So, I stuck with it. I'll try out the next few episodes and see how it goes.

 

[BertramCooper]

er, you went from mouthpiece to allegory... okay...

I'm comparing the ways in which Sorkin and Simon convey themes. Sorkin uses mouthpieces. Simon uses considerably more nuanced methods of storytelling (though he's not totally above the occasional proselytizing).

And it's a comparison I never would have invited myself, quite frankly.

I knew you'd hate it. This is why we love you, Cooper. You hate things so amazingly awesomely.

No, serious, I love your posts.

I have to channel my Whedon hate somewhere, I guess.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I feel like at this point with Sorkin TV, you pretty much know what you're going to get. Either you enjoy it now or you don't, but I don't for the life of me understand why people who clearly are not fans of his hyperbolic, self-congratulatory-liberalism, "smartest kid in the classroom" schtick still watch hoping something else happens.

I loved The Social Network and that was really all I'd seen of Sorkin's work. His style worked beautifully in that movie. It felt artificial and self-serving here.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I have to channel my Whedon hate somewhere, I guess.

You would have nuked the place if you were at the Dr. Horrible panel for Comic-Con.

"Please don't make fun of Dawn."

 

[LordCanti]

I wonder if this show was pitched as "What would happen if Brian Williams decided to become more like Jon Stewart"?

I liked the first episode, and I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.

 

[Blackhead]

Are you kidding? New Hamsterdam was a massive failure and essentially led to him being forced to retire... only to start a school program that was then cut by the mayor.

I know it's not fair to judge The Newsroom on the critics reviews of the first four episodes, but I don't get the impression that McAvoy or anyone on the team will suffer any real set back for standing up for their principals. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but that's just not the impression that I have of the show.

Like I said, if he makes the right call but get savaged for it - in a genuine way - then I'll probably be more on board with the "always right" attitude that the pilot exudes.

I was arguing about being a mouthpiece for the writer's political and social opinions in which case Major Colvin was very much so. David Simon would say he was right and a goddam american hero for standing up to those institutions.

if you want to talk about how the writers depict the reaction to those political and social opinions as spewed by the characters then that's not the same topic as Cooper brought up. As I said they are different shows.

I'm comparing the ways in which Sorkin and Simon convey themes. Sorkin uses mouthpieces. Simon uses considerably more nuanced methods of storytelling (though he's not totally above the occasional proselytizing).

And it's a comparison I never would have invited myself, quite frankly.

Then don't make blanket statements about what is 'artistic' because there are many exceptions to whatever rules you drum for excluding certain works.

 

[Sqorgar]

I loved The Social Network and that was really all I'd seen of Sorkin's work. His style worked beautifully in that movie. It felt artificial and self-serving here.

Well, there's your problem right there. You should probably start off with Sports Night, which has stronger comedy overtones to get you through the first couple episodes until you get used to his writing style. Or maybe The American President. Sorkin can be extremely charming when he wants to be. In The Newsroom, he doesn't want to be charming. He wants to be angry. And that obviously comes across as arrogant if you haven't also seen sports writers quoting passages from obscure books as smack talk during poker.

 

[whytemyke]

I loved The Social Network and that was really all I'd seen of Sorkin's work. His style worked beautifully in that movie. It felt artificial and self-serving here.

His film writing is more toned down than his television writing, for the most part. Check out Studio 60 or Sports Night for more examples.

Err, TWW had plenty. Josh and Donny being the key one, but also Charlie and Zoey.

Josh and Donna didn't happen as more than a serious friendship until long after Sorkin was done writing for it.

Charlie and Zoey was even more cutesy crush really until the third season or so. Plus I don't really consider them as main of characters as others in the show.

 

[giga]

That was really fun. Enjoyed it. Hope it remains fresh.

Also, Emily Mortimer has been nude in many roles. Expect it.

 

[BertramCooper]

Then don't make blanket statements about what is 'artistic' because there are many exceptions to whatever rules you drum for excluding certain works.

Artistry is a subjective quality. I'm voicing an opinion, not making an authoritative judgment.

Would you like me to preface each post by saying, "This is merely my opinion, but..." just to make it clear to you?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Would you like me to preface each post by saying, "This is merely my opinion, but..." just to make it clear to you?

Well, this is the internet, so you never know...

 

[brianjones]

not my cup of tea i guess

thought everything after the opening scene until the news broadcast was excruciating

jeff daniels, mortimer and alison pill are pretty good

im curious to see how much worse it's supposed to get

The Wire.

Reaction to this show actually reminds me, in a few ways, of the media reaction to the journalism storyline in season 5 of the Wire.

was thinking about wire season 5 while watching this, and ill probably enjoy that more than any of this show

 

[RS4-]

I've never bothered with West Wing and only caught a few eps of Studio 60.

I do have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed Newsroom (except the thought of Munn on the telly, I don't think that'll do any good for the show).

 

[Stumpokapow]

Josh and Donna didn't happen as more than a serious friendship until long after Sorkin was done writing for it.

"I wouldn't have stopped for red lights"

Charlie and Zoey was even more cutesy crush really until the third season or so. Plus I don't really consider them as main of characters as others in the show.

I guess then you wouldn't also take my example of the President and Mrs. Bartlett.

 

[firehawk12]

I've never bothered with West Wing and only caught a few eps of Studio 60.

I do have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed Newsroom (except the thought of Munn on the telly, I don't think that'll do any good for the show).

If you remotely enjoyed The Newsroom, you should probably watch TWW.

I was arguing about being a mouthpiece for the writer's political and social opinions in which case Major Colvin was very much so. David Simon would say he was right and a goddam american hero for standing up to those institutions.

if you want to talk about how the writers depict the reaction to those political and social opinions as spewed by the characters then that's not the same topic as Cooper brought up. As I said they are different shows.

I think with New Hamsterdam, there was a much more nuanced point to be made than simply "end the war on drugs" anyway.

The only character that is close to yelling at the audience from a Simon work is probably John Goodman's character on Treme. And that was a relatively minor part of the series.

"I wouldn't have stopped for red lights"

I guess then you wouldn't also take my example of the President and Mrs. Bartlett.

Yeah, S4 has some major Josh and Donna moments. Rob Lowe/Ainsley had their own moments as well.

 

[whytemyke]

"I wouldn't have stopped for red lights"



I guess then you wouldn't also take my example of the President and Mrs. Bartlett.

Yeeaahhhh... I still don't think the Josh/Donna thing turned romantic until at least when Donna got bombed. And I guess you can use Abby and Jed, but it's still done far more tactfully, I think, than anything in his other shows. I think having a marital relationship is easier for him to write than other stuff.

My point is that you still had stars hooking up in his other shows. Sports Night had Danny and whatever Felicity Huffman's character was. Studio 60 had Brad Whitford's character and Amanda Peet. Closest West Wing had, I think, was Danny Kincannon and CJ.

Maybe I'm wrong about the relationship thing. I just know he wrote them FAR better in West Wing than he has in anything else.

 

[firehawk12]

Yeeaahhhh... I still don't think the Josh/Donna thing turned romantic until at least when Donna got bombed. And I guess you can use Abby and Jed, but it's still done far more tactfully, I think, than anything in his other shows. I think having a marital relationship is easier for him to write than other stuff.

My point is that you still had stars hooking up in his other shows. Sports Night had Danny and whatever Felicity Huffman's character was. Studio 60 had Brad Whitford's character and Amanda Peet. Closest West Wing had, I think, was Danny Kincannon and CJ.

Maybe I'm wrong about the relationship thing. I just know he wrote them FAR better in West Wing than he has in anything else.

The difference is that in TWW, it was never really the focus - outside of the major plot point involving Charlie and the end of season 1.

I mean, Josh has a will he/won't he thing with... Marie Louise Parker's character for the better part of 5 years. But it's not the focus of every single episode.

 

[Zeth]

I loved the first episode. Will probably watch the rest of the season.

I understand the shit reviews, but I find it entertaining enough.

 

[Blackhead]

I think with New Hamsterdam, there was a much more nuanced point to be made than simply "end the war on drugs" anyway.

The only character that is close to yelling at the audience from a Simon work is probably John Goodman's character on Treme. And that was a relatively minor part of the series.

Again, don't want to get into a more extended discussion of the The Wire (and other David Simon works) in this thread. My only point was using characters as mouthpieces for the writer's own views—and you appear to proving that point more than disproving it.

 

[Amir0x]

And this is why you can't be a mod.

Because embarrassingly self-indulgent shows shouldn't be called out as such by people in positions of authority? Didn't know that too was part of the moderation code.

Too much jaded cynicism is bad for your health Amirox.

How is it jaded cynicism? I love tons of shows. This is just so painfully obvious that Sorkin is just abusing his characters to make some limp-dicked point about the state of America. And what's awful about it is that he does it with every character, every other scene. It's like a non-stop assault of contortionist writing in which all one can see is Sorkin, and never the characters themselves.

Frankly some of the diatribes were so one-dimensionally poor I'm a little surprised you think I'm being cynical. Maybe I should just say some people are really fucking forgiving.

 

[Dan]

This was a little hard to sit through. It's just so deliberately stacked to support the specific opinions Sorkin has. It's not enough for him to have a character make his point, he has to have the characters on the other side be overtly awful. I even agree with a lot of Sorkin's opinions, but the manner in which they're made is excruciating. Add in the whole reporting breaking news with years of 20/20 hindsight thing, and it gets pretty unbearable. If this was BP storyline was indeed done significantly better than the upcoming bin Laden one, I don't think I have the heart to watch that.

I may have to stop right here to avoid the frustration.

 

[Sqorgar]

This hindsight thing seems like an oddly specific complaint to be so frequently brought up. It's in, like, most of the internet reviews I've read and it's shown up several times in this thread. Is this some talking point I'm unaware of or something? I mean, isn't the point of hindsight to give perspective to events from the past? How is it a bad thing to use that perspective in a commentary? Apparently, people think it's some sort of "I'm better than you because I know what you didn't", but is that really the case?

From what I can tell, The Newsroom has been in development since 2009, with Sorkin sitting in with several news outlets during this time. Wouldn't something reported in 2010 have been roughly around when Sorkin was observing these guys doing their job?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

This was a little hard to sit through. It's just so deliberately stacked to support the specific opinions Sorkin has. It's not enough for him to have a character make his point, he has to have the characters on the other side be overtly awful. I even agree with a lot of Sorkin's opinions, but the manner in which they're made is excruciating. Add in the whole reporting breaking news with years of 20/20 hindsight thing, and it gets pretty unbearable. If this was BP storyline was indeed done significantly better than the upcoming bin Laden one, I don't think I have the heart to watch that.

I may have to stop right here to avoid the frustration.

I think it's a pretty awesome storytelling choice and technique, to be honest.

 

[Steelyuhas]

Just watched it, I really enjoyed it.

Looking forward to watching this series.

 

[ivysaur12]

Another weird fact: The only producer on The Newsroom who's had any writing credits before is Paul Redford (besides Sorkin, of course). I was under the impression that they had a traditional room, but I guess that's not the case.

This hindsight thing seems like an oddly specific complaint to be so frequently brought up. It's in, like, most of the internet reviews I've read and it's shown up several times in this thread. Is this some talking point I'm unaware of or something? I mean, isn't the point of hindsight to give perspective to events from the past? How is it a bad thing to use that perspective in a commentary? Apparently, people think it's some sort of "I'm better than you because I know what you didn't", but is that really the case?

From what I can tell, The Newsroom has been in development since 2009, with Sorkin sitting in with several news outlets during this time. Wouldn't something reported in 2010 have been roughly around when Sorkin was observing these guys doing their job?

Because the entire basis for the show is now built around the "how we should have reported it" perspective. That's now our POV. The problem? We understand the aftermath, the effects, everything now that helps us realize how these events could have been a problem. But at the time? Do we expect that there was someone in every single news room that understood the nuances of drilling and the effects that this fire could have had in mere hours after the event had transpired? Not really. And to suggest otherwise, or that those who didn't jump on the story in the same exact manner compromised their journalistic integrity for iPhone coverage, is ridiculous.

 

[Hawkian]

That particular element won't completely kill it for me, provided they fuck up occasionally. But if they become nothing more than some divine, infallible force for good in American broadcast news, that will get very old very fast.

They will fuck up. Fallibility is a major theme in Sorkin's shows; sometimes to the tune of a concealed drug addiction or congressional censure. Fret not on that count.

Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterston. I just think they are great actors. Good to see them on TV. So, I stuck with it. I'll try out the next few episodes and see how it goes.

Sorkin is, in my opinion, at his best writing tough love between seasoned friends. I can't think of a more compelling pair than those two for this; "that was a story about how somethings things just fall into your lap."

My smile is continuously growing wider as I read the criticisms being leveled here. Same as they've ever been. Particularly Amir0x's Keep the hate flowing big guy. I can tell I'm going to enjoy every minute of this (possibly excepting anything having to do with Olivia Munn).

 

[mattiewheels]

I've only read the New Yorker article on the show, but apparently: if you thought Studio 60 was a good show, you'll like the next episodes of this. The author accuses these episodes of crawling so far up their own ass that they're barely watchable. Should be fun to see what happens.

 

[firehawk12]

I've only read the New Yorker article on the show, but apparently: if you thought Studio 60 was a good show, you'll like the next episodes of this. The author accuses these episodes of crawling so far up their own ass that they're barely watchable. Should be fun to see what happens.

Yep, that was a fun review.

 

[Clevinger]

I liked it. Then again, I liked Studio's pilot as well before it all went downhill. Some of it was rough and cringeworthy though.
Dan or Don or whatever his name is needs to button up his shirt. He can't pull off that look, let alone in a professional setting.
Jeff Bridges, Sam Waterston, Emily Mortimer... Olivia Munn. Still can't believe that shit.

 

[Hydrogen Bluebird]

Listening to most of the dialogue is exhausting but the show is intriguing.

 

[Viewt]

Overall I really liked the pilot. One funny thing I picked up on was Jim Harper being oddly similar to Jim Halpert from The Office - even down to a crush with the currently-entangled secretary (though now she's an AP).

It's probably just an odd coincidence, but I thought it was a bit funny.

 

[Hawkian]

It's weird how many people have mentioned the Jim connection thing. I don't think they look alike at all!

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Overall I really liked the pilot. One funny thing I picked up on was Jim Harper being oddly similar to Jim Halpert from The Office - even down to a crush with the currently-entangled secretary (though now she's an AP).

It's probably just an odd coincidence, but I thought it was a bit funny.

I refuse to believe it's a coincidence. They look so alike.

 

[JumpingTheGun]

Damn Alison why is yo face so round girl?

really liking it so far.

 

[JGS]

This hindsight thing seems like an oddly specific complaint to be so frequently brought up. It's in, like, most of the internet reviews I've read and it's shown up several times in this thread. Is this some talking point I'm unaware of or something? I mean, isn't the point of hindsight to give perspective to events from the past? How is it a bad thing to use that perspective in a commentary? Apparently, people think it's some sort of "I'm better than you because I know what you didn't", but is that really the case?

From what I can tell, The Newsroom has been in development since 2009, with Sorkin sitting in with several news outlets during this time. Wouldn't something reported in 2010 have been roughly around when Sorkin was observing these guys doing their job?

It's fake prophecy and it happens in way too short a timeframe. Stories are better when they accidentally predict something (Or genius shows through and it was no accident. Sorkin has never been a good predicter of things) or foreshadow current events with past ones. This one just seems to be how the newsroom could be getting weekly scoops for the sake of soapboxing.

I said earlier how this show mirrors American President in it's tone and POV but, unlike that film, I had a hard time trying to rewatch it. This will be a one and done type of show sorta like West Wing was in its heyday.

 

[Danielsan]

Man. Just watched the pilot. And to think I was almost scared off by the negativity surrounding this show. That was absolutely fantastic! My only gripe is the cheesy music.
Also that girl who plays Maggie is ridiculously cute.

Edit: Wait. Holy shit, she's Kim Pine from Scott Pilgrim VS. The World!

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Also that girl who plays Maggie is ridiculously cute.