The Newsroom - Sorkin, Daniels, and Mortimer drama about cable news - Sundays on HBO
- Thread starter Cornballer
- Start date
- Status
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
She's a terrible actress and looks like a pumpkin. Perhaps she's a decent human being, I wouldn't know.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
You have terrible opinions. I can understand not being attracted to her, but she's a good actress.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Just take The Newsroom pilot for instance. Her speech disfluency borders on portraying her as being mentally handicapped. Just about every scene has her shaking awkwardly and coating her sentences with non-lexical vocables.
theignoramus
Member
Interesting that the full pilot's on hbo youtube channel.
why doesnt HBO upload full seasons to youtube then charge people for it?
Not for individual episodes or whatever, for a full "subscription" to locked content.
it's clunky, but shit, they'd make money from people who pirate their content for the sake of convenience.
why doesnt HBO upload full seasons to youtube then charge people for it?
Not for individual episodes or whatever, for a full "subscription" to locked content.
it's clunky, but shit, they'd make money from people who pirate their content for the sake of convenience.
To hook you on getting HBO in the current season so you can buy the full season on DVD.
Can't deny this feeling.
theignoramus
Member
Im liking the pilot so far, but Sorkin's characters are so predictable in their tendency to display neurotic behaviour. I want to step inside the worlds this guy writes and offer his characters another drink or line of blow, they seem like such raging addicts.
I can tell if it's good or bad that I am incredibly unfamiliar with Sorkin's work (only seen A Few Good Men and Charlie Wilson's War) but I like what I see and don't get the predictability out of it that others are.
I picked up HBO for this show about 3 hours before it air because of that tirade in the trailer months ago and so far am pleased. I hope the show doesn't disappoint.
I picked up HBO for this show about 3 hours before it air because of that tirade in the trailer months ago and so far am pleased. I hope the show doesn't disappoint.
Telosfortelos
Advocate for the People
Artificial dialogue and self-righteous "magic" diatribes (magic in effect and in impossible spontaneous eloquence in setting intended to convey realism). But I'll watch it again next week.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
That tirade would have been awesome if it ended at "YOSEMITE?!" like it did in the trailer
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I was wondering something last night as I was was cooking dinner like a boss.
Would people have liked or at least thought the beginning monologue was better if it was not a rant, but a calm listing of America's current problems?
I know Will is supposed to be a huge asshole, but you could have him say something to the two other news personalities later like "did any of them really buy that crap?" or something.
Would people have liked or at least thought the beginning monologue was better if it was not a rant, but a calm listing of America's current problems?
I know Will is supposed to be a huge asshole, but you could have him say something to the two other news personalities later like "did any of them really buy that crap?" or something.
They get the scoop because the producer has an old roommate who works for BP and a sister who works for Haliburton, both of whom are eager to share crucial info as soon as freakin' possible. This is beyond idealistic and wish-fulfillment. It's just distilling tons of real journalistic work that took time and effort into a quick and easy message. As much as Sorkin is hating on the news media for it's stupid political slants and faux-fair-and-balanced act, he's also apparently hating on it for not knowing the truth and consequences of events within mere hours.
As with many things, I like what Alyssa Rosenberg has been writing about The Newsroom.
THE NEWSROOM RECAP 1: WE JUST DECIDED TO
The Newsroom and Pop Cultures Allergy to Reporting
I didn't get that from it at all. It was just, as described in the episode itself, an unrealistic stroke of luck, and it occurred in the plot as a device for the anchor to get his swing back after months, maybe years of disillusionment. Sports Night did the same thing with a story about an old distance runner no one expects to perform well.
Seemed to me the criticism of the news media came from Will's practiced reluctance to take anyone to task in interviews until the Halliburton one, his fear of injecting any kind of personal ideology into newscasts, and the tendency to pursue "safe" stories rather than riskier ones that require talent and persistence to cover.
See, I think it was a problem here, and from the advanced reviews of people who saw the first four episodes, we're in for even more of this 'perfect reporting on day one' nonsense. Sounds like we're in for lots of unrealistic strokes of luck and convenient plot devices that spur Will into self-righteous and sanctimonious broadcasts. This sounds like a pattern far more than a one-off. We'll see how quickly they bring the show into the present, at least then they would get away from all this time-compression of info gathering that went into these real stories.
Cornballer
Member
A discussion of retro-reporting, among other things.
- Tim Goodman @ THR: Why Is Aaron Sorkin Such A Hot Button?
- Tim Goodman @ THR: Why Is Aaron Sorkin Such A Hot Button?
Loved the premiere. I cannot think of a single time this year where I've disagreed with the critics in such a big way (okay, I lied, I found the Avengers mediocre at best). I can't help but think critics are striking out Sorkin because of the current anti-journalistic attitude they perceive the show to have. I actually saw it more as a celebration of the best journalism has to offer, and can offer if we only allow it. It's as Will McAvoy said, "The first step in solving a problem is admitting there is one."
Critics are just unwilling to see the truth and are instead lashing out at his reputation. I think it's pretty childish to claim his work here is just a series of diatribes, which this is not even close to. He's doing so much more with these characters for them to just to blindly ignore it. To see critics try and reduce this show to mediocrity is one of the most embarrassing things I've ever had the displeasure to read these last few days.
I mean, come on, Barry Ackroyd was the DoP (cinematographer): The Hurt Locker for those that don't know any better. And Thomas *fucking* Newman. That music was glorious! Warm fuzzy feelings all around.
I sure hope this show is up for Emmy consideration. Obviously, I'd expect a lot of technical nominations, but the one's I'd pray the most for is the cast. Sam Waterson for sure. His performance was captivating as the wise old drunk sage executive. And I'd love nothing more for a couple of nods for Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer in particular. Daniels nailed that speech in the beginning and I loved his madder than fuck attitude, which is like the direct opposite to Mortimer's commanding but sincere and fragile role as the new EP. I expect we'll get a chance to see even more of her range as they dig through her past. Her smile is infectious, by the way.
Well, enough of my rant. Thank God for Sorkin! That's all I can say.
Critics are just unwilling to see the truth and are instead lashing out at his reputation. I think it's pretty childish to claim his work here is just a series of diatribes, which this is not even close to. He's doing so much more with these characters for them to just to blindly ignore it. To see critics try and reduce this show to mediocrity is one of the most embarrassing things I've ever had the displeasure to read these last few days.
I mean, come on, Barry Ackroyd was the DoP (cinematographer): The Hurt Locker for those that don't know any better. And Thomas *fucking* Newman. That music was glorious! Warm fuzzy feelings all around.
I sure hope this show is up for Emmy consideration. Obviously, I'd expect a lot of technical nominations, but the one's I'd pray the most for is the cast. Sam Waterson for sure. His performance was captivating as the wise old drunk sage executive. And I'd love nothing more for a couple of nods for Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer in particular. Daniels nailed that speech in the beginning and I loved his madder than fuck attitude, which is like the direct opposite to Mortimer's commanding but sincere and fragile role as the new EP. I expect we'll get a chance to see even more of her range as they dig through her past. Her smile is infectious, by the way.
Well, enough of my rant. Thank God for Sorkin! That's all I can say.
o.o
It's gonna happen. This is so much low-hanging fruit to criticize based on the premise of this show alone... I expect critical highs and lows throughout the season with no shortage of draaaama the whole way round. Just gotta roll with it
Y no Thomas Schlamme and Snuffy Walden?
I don't get it. But I must say I did enjoy the way it was shot (the "cupid - bam!" sequence of cuts got me) and enjoyed the title theme very much.Serious talent on screen to be sure. I eagerly await the tiered flashbacks revealing the inner demons of all concerned.
juuuust playin
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Mmmm... no
Okay, well the important thing is that I was cooking dinner like a boss.
On this, all Americans can agree.
VelvetMouth
Member
Yep. Josh and Donna had serious under currents from the start of the show. Donna was only supposed to be in the pilot but Janel Maloney and Bradley Whitford had such great chemistry that Bradley Whitford begged Sorkin to write her into more episodes. Josh was supposed to get back with that dullard Mandy. Sorkin got very lucky with their relationship because it wasn't part of his plan for the characters.
As for Studio 60, he completely lost the ability to write credible female characters. Amanda Peet was supposed to be a smart, gung ho young exec but she turned out to be a blubbering preggo who like all stereotypical pregnant women spend their time stuffing their faces. Her relationship with Bradley Whitford came out of nowhere and pissed a lot of women off because he turned into a stalker when she told him no and then suddenly she changes her mind again and they're a couple. Terrible writing.
People are saying that Emily Mortimer's character goes down the same way. You are told she's smart and idealistic but she basically turns into a mirror of Peet's character.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
I think most of the negativity is directed at next three episodes. Most of the critics that I read seemed to like the pilot quite a bit. Some even called it great. I don't think it's possible to address the critics' criticisms until we've actually seen the episodes that they've seen.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
We're 1st in being bosses.
I think it was more due to the fact that he had just broken up with Chenoweth, and the entire Matt/Harriet storyline was apparently their entire relationship.
I'd have fuckin' broken up with him, too.
Worst part of the show.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
doublepost
That's pretty accurate. Most critics said the the pilot was pretty good but showed some flaws, and the flaws become the prominent part of the show in the next three episodes.
That's where I'm not even sure I want to try those episodes, since I didn't even have a high opinion of the pilot.
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
You know, I'm watching a behind the scenes on HBO. And they played a whole scene between Olivia Munn and the EP lady. Where Munn expresses her hesitancy to be on McAvoy's show just because she's attractive, because of how it will make her seem to the viewing public.
It was like she was talkign straight at GAF.
It was like she was talkign straight at GAF.
Cornballer
Member
Please spoiler tag discussion of promo material that hasn't aired yet. Thank you.
BertramCooper
Banned
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
His step-dad is the president.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Buah. Either I totally didn't know that, or I purged it from my memory.
Cornballer
Member
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Getting a feeling no one who is criticizing the criticism is even reading it? The show has some fundamental issues, none of which are this anti-journalism thing that people are trying to say would rile a critic up. What riles a critic up is being weak at being a TV show.
I feel like this Daily Show clip is apropos to some of the discussion had on the Newsroom:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/twitter-pundits
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/twitter-pundits
onlyindreams
Banned
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
mr stroke
Member
Just watched the first episode and really disappointed. I generally love Sorkin, but this was all over the place. The dialog and music all felt contrived and forced. It started out really well in the first 15 mins. Then once it went into Jeff Daniels screaming at everyone and american journalism speeches accompanied by cheesy music I had to turn it off.
What a let down
What a let down
I didn't know what to think of it coming into it and now that it's done I'm even more torn. Which is something strange for an HBO show. I either love it from the beginning (Boardwalk Empire, GoT, Luck) or hate it (Girls/Enlightened) But this is teetering between love and hate.
I hate that it just drips so much nostalgia. I hate the Mary Sue and overblown drama.
But I like what it tries to be. I like the idea of having a journalistic hero...
But I am interested enough to tune in next week. So I guess I'm not firing them this week.
I hate that it just drips so much nostalgia. I hate the Mary Sue and overblown drama.
But I like what it tries to be. I like the idea of having a journalistic hero...
But I am interested enough to tune in next week. So I guess I'm not firing them this week.
Really, because that's all I've read. I've heard some comments about the pacing, but most call it overly preachy with very little substance. They say Sorkin uses his characters to sell his ideas, which is what every creator does by the way (whether instinctual or not), hence the soapbox. He's already shown them to have way more depth than they give him credit for. I've seen plenty of journalists accuse him of pushing an agenda. Some are reacting very bitterly. How you can miss this is beyond me. And yes, I've read the reviews. Most only hint at scenes that come later, but almost speak generally. It's not like they're saying, "The show starts falling apart after the pilot." Most just say, "What a marvelous trainwreck of a show."
I will obviously withhold judgement on the show until I've seen more episodes, but right now this is quite a good start. Most reviews I've read, don't even give it that much credit. Just saying.
Matter of fact, one critic in particular singled out using actual news for their stories was extremely heavy-handed, but I found it the single most exciting part of the episode. I had no idea they would be covering actual events, and when I saw the date pop up in the premiere I swear my heart skipped a beat. Here I thought it was the present day.
Cursed Frogurt
Banned
I Liked the premiere episode but it definitely has its issues. I'll be tuning in if for no other reason than many critics have said the first episode was good, the 2nd was preachy, and the third and fourth fall completely off a cliff. I wanna see that. HBO's been pretty hit-or-miss for me lately. I loved VEEP but despised Girls.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll