Oh, and get rid of Sam Waterston, too. For three episodes now, the only consistent character qualities he's displayed is erratic senile belligerence. I don't know why he exists.
Because he's Sam Fucking Waterson.
And he's the foil to McAvoy, the straight man, the island of sanity in an otherwise insane sea of Newsnight 2.0. He's no saint - he drinks too much, puts his head in the sand, and is ham fisted in his own way, but he gets 'it', even if he waxes nostalgic to the 'good old days'.
This last episode showed that Charlie CLEARLY does not "get it."
What does he not get? You're losing me a bit here.
He seems to know what the show is trying to accomplish, but is also well aware of the potential professional dangers. He's just siding with the former, for now.
His raging nostalgia boner is pretty annoying, but I don't find the character unenjoyable in the least.
The last scene of the episode is Charlie telling Will that Jane Fonda is probably wanting to tell them all, "Good job." Charlie's demeanor throughout his inquisition shows that he was completely unaware of the gravity of the room around him, and his continued outcry of, "What are we doing here?!" showed how terribly out of touch with the corporation he is.
Charlie is an idiot with a nostalgia boner and a drinking problem, and he's threatened to assault at least one person in each episode so far. Sam Waterston couldn't manhandle a wet kitten.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
At least they basically confirmed that for all of Will's evenhanded attempts to go after the Tea Party, it didn't mean shit when it came to voting day. Sorkin kind of glossed over the implications, but there it is: even good media does nothing, in his universe. His characters are all concerned with living up to their journalistic ideals but those ideas are apparently useless in terms of affecting the voting public (who is tuning out anyway).
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't think I'm a fan of the "set 2 years ago" thing, either. It is something that could work but the way they have used it so far really just seems lazy.
As of this last episode, they've moved the timeline pretty quickly. Last episode covered six months, May-November 2010. If that keeps up, we'll be current by the season finale.
The problem is that if Will and Mackenzie are successful, how is that going to be portrayed? If they're using history as a guideline, at some point that history should be changing to reflect the new paradigm. If not, they're just going to look like (noble) failures.
I don't think I'm a fan of the "set 2 years ago" thing, either. It is something that could work but the way they have used it so far really just seems lazy.
It's been talked about in the thread, but I think the best option may have been to create fake news / events like TWW.
I'm not sure if that would work though, because we all have a sense of how the media reacted to the stories that are being re-covered in The Newsroom, so we can observe what they do differently. You could still do this with fictional events, but I think it loses a bit of punch there.
It also seems to be a choice that exists mostly because a) it's easier to make the show look full of truth and integrity when we have years of hindsight on the stuff they're covering, and b) it puts Sorkin another step closer to the political commentator/gamer he seems to desperately want to be.
I don't think I would enjoy it as much if it was fake news. I actually like that the show is set against a backdrop of real events and I like their particular take on those events. The context is much more interesting to me as I have emotional investment in those events whereas fake news would not be nearly as intriguing. Just my opinion though, I think fake news would feel contrived to me.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
I don't think I'm a fan of the "set 2 years ago" thing, either. It is something that could work but the way they have used it so far really just seems lazy.
It's been talked about in the thread, but I think the best option may have been to create fake news / events like TWW.
I'm not sure if that would work though, because we all have a sense of how the media reacted to the stories that are being re-covered in The Newsroom, so we can observe what they do differently. You could still do this with fictional events, but I think it loses a bit of punch there.
It also seems to be a choice that exists mostly because a) it's easier to make the show look full of truth and integrity when we have years of hindsight on the stuff they're covering, and b) it puts Sorkin another step closer to the political commentator/gamer he seems to desperately want to be.
I don't think I would enjoy it as much if it was fake news. I actually like that the show is set against a backdrop of real events and I like their particular take on those events. The context is much more interesting to me as I have emotional investment in those events whereas fake news would not be nearly as intriguing. Just my opinion though, I think fake news would feel contrived to me.
I agree, I just think there's something a bit unseemly about the show basically going back and inserting themselves into past commentary on historical events in an incredibly favorable light. You're going to get a lot of the same types of straw men necessary for this approach when you go with fake news though, maybe even more. I'm just mixed on the whole deal, is all.
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Oh, and get rid of Sam Waterston, too. For three episodes now, the only consistent character qualities he's displayed is erratic senile belligerence. I don't know why he exists.
Because he's Sam Fucking Waterson.
And he's the foil to McAvoy, the straight man, the island of sanity in an otherwise insane sea of Newsnight 2.0. He's no saint - he drinks too much, puts his head in the sand, and is ham fisted in his own way, but he gets 'it', even if he waxes nostalgic to the 'good old days'.
This last episode showed that Charlie CLEARLY does not "get it."
What does he not get? You're losing me a bit here.
He seems to know what the show is trying to accomplish, but is also well aware of the potential professional dangers. He's just siding with the former, for now.
His raging nostalgia boner is pretty annoying, but I don't find the character unenjoyable in the least.
The last scene of the episode is Charlie telling Will that Jane Fonda is probably wanting to tell them all, "Good job." Charlie's demeanor throughout his inquisition shows that he was completely unaware of the gravity of the room around him, and his continued outcry of, "What are we doing here?!" showed how terribly out of touch with the corporation he is.
Charlie is an idiot with a nostalgia boner and a drinking problem, and he's threatened to assault at least one person in each episode so far. Sam Waterston couldn't manhandle a wet kitten.
I don't think he was unaware of the professional risks, he's just not going to go down that road at this point because of what he believes in with regards to the show and to the news and to politics. His out of touchness can be taken as exasperation with the way the industry is run.
I'm definitely giving him some time - for all we know his history could be that of a vicious businessman and he sees this as an opportunity for some personal redemption. It's three episodes so far and even now it isn't as bad off as you're saying - don't build up your brick wall of passionate hatred too high just yet.
I don't think I'm a fan of the "set 2 years ago" thing, either. It is something that could work but the way they have used it so far really just seems lazy.
As of this last episode, they've moved the timeline pretty quickly. Last episode covered six months, May-November 2010. If that keeps up, we'll be current by the season finale.
The problem is that if Will and Mackenzie are successful, how is that going to be portrayed? If they're using history as a guideline, at some point that history should be changing to reflect the new paradigm. If not, they're just going to look like (noble) failures.
The episode was also a single news 'story'. I don't think they will get caught up, but will instead stay about a year behind (so Season 1 ends around April 2011).
Oh, and get rid of Sam Waterston, too. For three episodes now, the only consistent character qualities he's displayed is erratic senile belligerence. I don't know why he exists.
Because he's Sam Fucking Waterson.
And he's the foil to McAvoy, the straight man, the island of sanity in an otherwise insane sea of Newsnight 2.0. He's no saint - he drinks too much, puts his head in the sand, and is ham fisted in his own way, but he gets 'it', even if he waxes nostalgic to the 'good old days'.
This last episode showed that Charlie CLEARLY does not "get it."
What does he not get? You're losing me a bit here.
He seems to know what the show is trying to accomplish, but is also well aware of the potential professional dangers. He's just siding with the former, for now.
His raging nostalgia boner is pretty annoying, but I don't find the character unenjoyable in the least.
The last scene of the episode is Charlie telling Will that Jane Fonda is probably wanting to tell them all, "Good job." Charlie's demeanor throughout his inquisition shows that he was completely unaware of the gravity of the room around him, and his continued outcry of, "What are we doing here?!" showed how terribly out of touch with the corporation he is.
Charlie is an idiot with a nostalgia boner and a drinking problem, and he's threatened to assault at least one person in each episode so far. Sam Waterston couldn't manhandle a wet kitten.
I don't think he was unaware of the professional risks, he's just not going to go down that road at this point because of what he believes in with regards to the show and to the news and to politics. His out of touchness can be taken as exasperation with the way the industry is run.
I'm definitely giving him some time - for all we know his history could be that of a vicious businessman and he sees this as an opportunity for some personal redemption. It's three episodes so far and even now it isn't as bad off as you're saying - don't build up your brick wall of passionate hatred too high just yet.
Yeah I'm pretty sure he is acutely aware of the professional risks as in the previous episode he specifically told that ratings guy not to report the ratings to Will. It seems to me that he is very much trying to divorce the staff of the show with the higher ups so they don't feel the pressure from above to conform and can put out the show they want to do.
Essentially he is taking the entire brunt of the fallout and trying to force his way through by dismissing their concerns. Not sure how that's going to work for him given the ultimatum but I don't think he is out of touch with what is going on at all. His character seems very much like a jester. He is keenly aware of what is going on, and is actually instrumental in making it happen with his behind the scenes meddling, but to the outside world he portrays himself as a bumbling drunk. I actually really like his character because it is so very clear that he is playing everyone towards his own ends.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
At least they basically confirmed that for all of Will's evenhanded attempts to go after the Tea Party, it didn't mean shit when it came to voting day. Sorkin kind of glossed over the implications, but there it is: even good media does nothing, in his universe. His characters are all concerned with living up to their journalistic ideals but those ideas are apparently useless in terms of affecting the voting public (who is tuning out anyway).
It's sad, but even a keen observational wit like Kurt Vonnegut eventually decried the intellectuals and musicians of the counter-culture movement as ultimately ineffectual.
Then again, this last episode had Sorkin railing against Abbie Hoffman, so there you go.
Also, "By the way, I assume you've never thought of this idea before, allow me to bestow it upon you: your condition can be helped by medication. And since that's news to you, here's a list of health-related tasks you should perform on a regular basis in order to maintain your vagina. I also learned about that in Iraq."
Given the dramatic irony created by the scene opening with her talking on the phone about her xanax being stolen, this seems only appropriate as a criticism of an intentional flaw in the character rather than being an issue with writing. I mean, I'd say she is kinda exasperated by this particular piece of advice.
I does kinda highlight a recurring misogynistic theme with Sorkin's work, though:
When women do something unlikable it's because they're broken; when men do something unlikable it's because of a woman.
Like when Will turns into the world's most oblivious asshole with his never-ending parade of sexy bitches meeting him at work. It's brought to his attention that he's being a jerk about it, so he goes to Mackenzie to apologize, but sees her with her discretely monogamous boyfriend and is all, "Oh, it's same thing. Both sides are bad. Nevermind. Carry on." THAT'S NOT HOW THAT WORKS.
You're right. I don't think that's what's happening in the scene at all.
It was more of a case of showing that Will can bite his tongue and not use this moment for an attack on Mackenzie and all the "wrong" he believes she did to him. It's a moment of growth for him. Because while there was an opportunity to paint himself as the victim, he chose not to. (Unlike last episode.)
While at the same time it confirmed that Mackenzie was in fact not over Will. That it wasn't about her commenting on Will slumming with whoever he might attract, but that she was in fact struggling with how she felt about him while being in a relationship.
This inflationary use of the word "misogyny" is spreading some preconceived notions about those episodes that is actively hurting discussion and analysis, I think. That doesn't really change the fact that the romance-parts of the show are so overtly familiar to the point of being annoying.
I like this show so far, the performances are really strong and although I understand the Sorkin hate/irritation, can't say I agree with it. Glad the show is getting a decent run, hope it catches on and only improves with age.
At least they basically confirmed that for all of Will's evenhanded attempts to go after the Tea Party, it didn't mean shit when it came to voting day. Sorkin kind of glossed over the implications, but there it is: even good media does nothing, in his universe. His characters are all concerned with living up to their journalistic ideals but those ideas are apparently useless in terms of affecting the voting public (who is tuning out anyway).
It's sad, but even a keen observational wit like Kurt Vonnegut eventually decried the intellectuals and musicians of the counter-culture movement as ultimately ineffectual.
Then again, this last episode had Sorkin railing against Abbie Hoffman, so there you go.
yeah watching that election night, all I could think is "you went to the effort to do the right thing and do a good job, and you are left losing and screaming at the winners in the end and they dont care what your questions are, and they haven't learned anything either."
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
At least they basically confirmed that for all of Will's evenhanded attempts to go after the Tea Party, it didn't mean shit when it came to voting day. Sorkin kind of glossed over the implications, but there it is: even good media does nothing, in his universe. His characters are all concerned with living up to their journalistic ideals but those ideas are apparently useless in terms of affecting the voting public (who is tuning out anyway).
It's sad, but even a keen observational wit like Kurt Vonnegut eventually decried the intellectuals and musicians of the counter-culture movement as ultimately ineffectual.
Then again, this last episode had Sorkin railing against Abbie Hoffman, so there you go.
yeah watching that election night, all I could think is "you went to the effort to do the right thing and do a good job, and you are left losing and screaming at the winners in the end and they dont care what your questions are, and they haven't learned anything either."
The most interesting thing to me is that this is exactly what people were talking about before the pilot even aired, that Speaking Truth to Stupid doesn't work because of the John Cleese Stupidity Threshold Failure: at a certain point, self-awareness becomes impossible because you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.
The interesting part about that is that I didn't really think Sorkin was going to go there, and certainly not in the first few episodes. His projects are typically so masturbatory that considerations such as an effect on reality tend to go out the window pretty soon.
But here we are, three episodes in, and Will McAvoy is Speaking Truth to Stupid, and Stupid is just keeps laughing and braying in his face, carrying on as usual. I really hope we keep exploring that, because if Sorkin can realistically solve that dilemma in fiction, maybe we can start to solve it in real life, too.
0
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
If Denise Richards can be a twenty something nuclear physicist in a Bond movie ("Looks like Christmas came early this year!"), Olivia Munn can have a PhD in Economics.
She hasn't seemed bad to me yet. Combined in the three eps we've seen so far she's had, what, maybe 10 minutes of screen time? In the second ep she was a for stronger character than MacKenzie in their scene, and in the third ep she seemed flustered, but anybody would have if they were getting blown off by a congressman-elect on television (hell, Will was flustered by it, too).
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
People here are being hard on her because she has a rep with gamers.
Olivia has been completely unoffensive to my parents watching the show.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I don't think I'm a fan of the "set 2 years ago" thing, either. It is something that could work but the way they have used it so far really just seems lazy.
As of this last episode, they've moved the timeline pretty quickly. Last episode covered six months, May-November 2010. If that keeps up, we'll be current by the season finale.
The problem is that if Will and Mackenzie are successful, how is that going to be portrayed? If they're using history as a guideline, at some point that history should be changing to reflect the new paradigm. If not, they're just going to look like (noble) failures.
Could be that Sorkin is so full of himself that he actually plans on having the show itself change the political tone in the nation in real life. Run up until current time in the first season, then the show will effect the next however long, and then the show world will be in our world, but our world is actually a progressive wet dream.
Or it could be that at the time they started writing the pilot the missjudged how long it would take for the show to get picked up/aired, and as the season goes on they get closer to their wanted timeframe.
Or, and more likely, they'll follow the model of what really happens in the case of this kind of show, Maddow. Awesome show, great reporting, but overall ignored by anyone who's not progressive and intelligent.
No I don't.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well Sorkin had the Bartlett administration
"solve" mid-east peace
and that obviously didn't happen in real life so I don't think he's assuming The Newsroom will "fix" the real world. He might hope though.
As a writer, I understand and sort of respect that.
and that obviously didn't happen in real life so I don't think he's assuming The Newsroom will "fix" the real world. He might hope though.
As a writer, I understand and sort of respect that.
That sounded like a dig at Sorkin on my part... but honestly I wish it would happen.
I would bee 100% fine with the real world suddenly changing to be like the West Wing, even if it did mean a ton of relationship drama happening to me all the time... and everyone having the prefect thing to say at all times.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
and that obviously didn't happen in real life so I don't think he's assuming The Newsroom will "fix" the real world. He might hope though.
As a writer, I understand and sort of respect that.
That sounded like a dig at Sorkin... but honestly I wish it would happen.
It wasn't a dig at all, though I didn't like his solution very much. And if The Newsroom can make CNN stop shitting the bed or get people to stop giving Fox News the time of day more power to him.
I'm a fan of everything Sorkin I've ever seen and hope this show is a great success.
and that obviously didn't happen in real life so I don't think he's assuming The Newsroom will "fix" the real world. He might hope though.
As a writer, I understand and sort of respect that.
That sounded like a dig at Sorkin... but honestly I wish it would happen.
It wasn't a dig at all, though I didn't like his solution very much. And if The Newsroom can make CNN stop shitting the bed or get people to stop giving Fox News the time of day more power to him.
I'm a fan of everything Sorkin I've ever seen and hope this show is a great success.
Whoops, wasn't clear in my post. What I said sounded like a dig at Sorkin. I agree though, I love what the guy produces. More than enough to look past the recycled material. He plays way too much into the "this is what I want out of humanity" part of my brain. Speaking of which, are there any West Wing characters that don't have representation yet? I'd love to get in on that.
No I don't.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited July 2012
Gotcha. It's all good.
Um, I think a few of the later season ones are still open.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
and that obviously didn't happen in real life so I don't think he's assuming The Newsroom will "fix" the real world. He might hope though.
As a writer, I understand and sort of respect that.
That sounded like a dig at Sorkin... but honestly I wish it would happen.
It wasn't a dig at all, though I didn't like his solution very much. And if The Newsroom can make CNN stop shitting the bed or get people to stop giving Fox News the time of day more power to him.
I'm a fan of everything Sorkin I've ever seen and hope this show is a great success.
I hope it's already working.
Thanks to The Newsroom's dig at Utah senator Mike Lee's position on the 14th Amendment (made two years ago), Lee released a statement decrying a "distortion of his nuanced opinion" to the various news outlets.
The soapy love triangle stuff does nothing for me. I managed to sit through Will's soapy bits, but anything involving Jim / Maggie / Don was so awful I just fast-forwarded past it.
The Bigfoot stuff was stupid.
Charlie not realizing it was the AWN CEO behind the smears was stupid.
The flashback to the previous episode was stupid.
The 2011 Tucson shooting thing was painful. It's episode four, and they're already turning the whole breaking-news-from-the-past thing into a gimmick? It's like how West Wing always ended the season with some horrible tragedy, except they've done it twice in four episodes. And those West Wing tragedies were fictional. Watching a real tragedy (and a recent one, at that) put to melodramatic music just felt weird.
Yeah, this show's not for me. I'm out.
0
Options
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
edited July 2012
I really didn't get the Bigfoot stuff either. If there was any indication in the previous episodes that Patel's character was insane, then maybe I could have got over my confusion and found it funny. I really liked the episode though. The relationship angles are fine and I'm starting to like Will more.
Will has grown on me with all this obnoxious and belittling "mission to civilize"-blather. It's just the kind of thing a conceited, self-important guy like him would think and his obliviousness about it kind of deflates the character enough to make him approachable.
I'm also starting to like Don, because he's obviously a manipulative jackass in private, but has some integrity when it comes to his job.
If Jim and Maggie were both smarter, more playful and/or ambitious about their relationship I might actually enjoy that part more. Actually, if their (Jim, Maggie & Don's) storylines were just about constantly gaining the upper hand and trying to make one of the other look like an ass... it'd be much more interesting to watch than whatever it is that is now filling up the long pauses between the good news bits.
Hey, can someone help me out? Towards the end of the episode when everyone's yelling back and forth with Will, what the hell does Charlie say? Because it sounds like he says "FEED THE FUCKING SEALS" and that can't possibly be right.
Also I liked the episode. It doesn't really bother me that several characters are heinously written; that's just how Sorkin rolls.
Posts
The last scene of the episode is Charlie telling Will that Jane Fonda is probably wanting to tell them all, "Good job." Charlie's demeanor throughout his inquisition shows that he was completely unaware of the gravity of the room around him, and his continued outcry of, "What are we doing here?!" showed how terribly out of touch with the corporation he is.
Charlie is an idiot with a nostalgia boner and a drinking problem, and he's threatened to assault at least one person in each episode so far. Sam Waterston couldn't manhandle a wet kitten.
As of this last episode, they've moved the timeline pretty quickly. Last episode covered six months, May-November 2010. If that keeps up, we'll be current by the season finale.
The problem is that if Will and Mackenzie are successful, how is that going to be portrayed? If they're using history as a guideline, at some point that history should be changing to reflect the new paradigm. If not, they're just going to look like (noble) failures.
I don't think I would enjoy it as much if it was fake news. I actually like that the show is set against a backdrop of real events and I like their particular take on those events. The context is much more interesting to me as I have emotional investment in those events whereas fake news would not be nearly as intriguing. Just my opinion though, I think fake news would feel contrived to me.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I agree, I just think there's something a bit unseemly about the show basically going back and inserting themselves into past commentary on historical events in an incredibly favorable light. You're going to get a lot of the same types of straw men necessary for this approach when you go with fake news though, maybe even more. I'm just mixed on the whole deal, is all.
I don't think he was unaware of the professional risks, he's just not going to go down that road at this point because of what he believes in with regards to the show and to the news and to politics. His out of touchness can be taken as exasperation with the way the industry is run.
I'm definitely giving him some time - for all we know his history could be that of a vicious businessman and he sees this as an opportunity for some personal redemption. It's three episodes so far and even now it isn't as bad off as you're saying - don't build up your brick wall of passionate hatred too high just yet.
The episode was also a single news 'story'. I don't think they will get caught up, but will instead stay about a year behind (so Season 1 ends around April 2011).
Yeah I'm pretty sure he is acutely aware of the professional risks as in the previous episode he specifically told that ratings guy not to report the ratings to Will. It seems to me that he is very much trying to divorce the staff of the show with the higher ups so they don't feel the pressure from above to conform and can put out the show they want to do.
Essentially he is taking the entire brunt of the fallout and trying to force his way through by dismissing their concerns. Not sure how that's going to work for him given the ultimatum but I don't think he is out of touch with what is going on at all. His character seems very much like a jester. He is keenly aware of what is going on, and is actually instrumental in making it happen with his behind the scenes meddling, but to the outside world he portrays himself as a bumbling drunk. I actually really like his character because it is so very clear that he is playing everyone towards his own ends.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
It's sad, but even a keen observational wit like Kurt Vonnegut eventually decried the intellectuals and musicians of the counter-culture movement as ultimately ineffectual.
Then again, this last episode had Sorkin railing against Abbie Hoffman, so there you go.
You're right. I don't think that's what's happening in the scene at all.
It was more of a case of showing that Will can bite his tongue and not use this moment for an attack on Mackenzie and all the "wrong" he believes she did to him. It's a moment of growth for him. Because while there was an opportunity to paint himself as the victim, he chose not to. (Unlike last episode.)
While at the same time it confirmed that Mackenzie was in fact not over Will. That it wasn't about her commenting on Will slumming with whoever he might attract, but that she was in fact struggling with how she felt about him while being in a relationship.
This inflationary use of the word "misogyny" is spreading some preconceived notions about those episodes that is actively hurting discussion and analysis, I think. That doesn't really change the fact that the romance-parts of the show are so overtly familiar to the point of being annoying.
yeah watching that election night, all I could think is "you went to the effort to do the right thing and do a good job, and you are left losing and screaming at the winners in the end and they dont care what your questions are, and they haven't learned anything either."
The most interesting thing to me is that this is exactly what people were talking about before the pilot even aired, that Speaking Truth to Stupid doesn't work because of the John Cleese Stupidity Threshold Failure: at a certain point, self-awareness becomes impossible because you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.
The interesting part about that is that I didn't really think Sorkin was going to go there, and certainly not in the first few episodes. His projects are typically so masturbatory that considerations such as an effect on reality tend to go out the window pretty soon.
But here we are, three episodes in, and Will McAvoy is Speaking Truth to Stupid, and Stupid is just keeps laughing and braying in his face, carrying on as usual. I really hope we keep exploring that, because if Sorkin can realistically solve that dilemma in fiction, maybe we can start to solve it in real life, too.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
If Denise Richards can be a twenty something nuclear physicist in a Bond movie ("Looks like Christmas came early this year!"), Olivia Munn can have a PhD in Economics.
Olivia has been completely unoffensive to my parents watching the show.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Could be that Sorkin is so full of himself that he actually plans on having the show itself change the political tone in the nation in real life. Run up until current time in the first season, then the show will effect the next however long, and then the show world will be in our world, but our world is actually a progressive wet dream.
Or it could be that at the time they started writing the pilot the missjudged how long it would take for the show to get picked up/aired, and as the season goes on they get closer to their wanted timeframe.
Or, and more likely, they'll follow the model of what really happens in the case of this kind of show, Maddow. Awesome show, great reporting, but overall ignored by anyone who's not progressive and intelligent.
As a writer, I understand and sort of respect that.
That sounded like a dig at Sorkin on my part... but honestly I wish it would happen.
I would bee 100% fine with the real world suddenly changing to be like the West Wing, even if it did mean a ton of relationship drama happening to me all the time... and everyone having the prefect thing to say at all times.
It wasn't a dig at all, though I didn't like his solution very much. And if The Newsroom can make CNN stop shitting the bed or get people to stop giving Fox News the time of day more power to him.
I'm a fan of everything Sorkin I've ever seen and hope this show is a great success.
Whoops, wasn't clear in my post. What I said sounded like a dig at Sorkin. I agree though, I love what the guy produces. More than enough to look past the recycled material. He plays way too much into the "this is what I want out of humanity" part of my brain. Speaking of which, are there any West Wing characters that don't have representation yet? I'd love to get in on that.
Um, I think a few of the later season ones are still open.
I hope it's already working.
Thanks to The Newsroom's dig at Utah senator Mike Lee's position on the 14th Amendment (made two years ago), Lee released a statement decrying a "distortion of his nuanced opinion" to the various news outlets.
The titles are fine. The music however... I honestly don't know what kind of show that music would work for.
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
Whether that's intentional, I have no idea. But the show's score seems to carry that theme over.
It sounds a lot like the West Wing's score...and it makes sense there because it's the American presidency. I mean why not.
This is a show about modern network news. It feels like it should be acknowledging something else.
But it's also the last episode that was screened, right? So there's at least a chance it gets better now, right?
On the plus side this was the first episode Sam Waterson was not a net negative for the show.
The soapy love triangle stuff does nothing for me. I managed to sit through Will's soapy bits, but anything involving Jim / Maggie / Don was so awful I just fast-forwarded past it.
The Bigfoot stuff was stupid.
Charlie not realizing it was the AWN CEO behind the smears was stupid.
The flashback to the previous episode was stupid.
The 2011 Tucson shooting thing was painful. It's episode four, and they're already turning the whole breaking-news-from-the-past thing into a gimmick? It's like how West Wing always ended the season with some horrible tragedy, except they've done it twice in four episodes. And those West Wing tragedies were fictional. Watching a real tragedy (and a recent one, at that) put to melodramatic music just felt weird.
Yeah, this show's not for me. I'm out.
I'm also starting to like Don, because he's obviously a manipulative jackass in private, but has some integrity when it comes to his job.
If Jim and Maggie were both smarter, more playful and/or ambitious about their relationship I might actually enjoy that part more. Actually, if their (Jim, Maggie & Don's) storylines were just about constantly gaining the upper hand and trying to make one of the other look like an ass... it'd be much more interesting to watch than whatever it is that is now filling up the long pauses between the good news bits.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Also I liked the episode. It doesn't really bother me that several characters are heinously written; that's just how Sorkin rolls.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.