“Listen here, Internet girl,” he says, getting up. “It wouldn’t kill you to watch a film or pick up a newspaper once in a while.” I’m not sure how he’s forgotten that I am writing for a newspaper; looking over the publicist’s shoulder, I see that every reporter is from a print publication (do not see: Drew Magary). I remind him. I say also, factually, “I have a New York Times subscription and an HBO subscription. Any other advice?”
He looks surprised, then high-fives me. Being not a person who high-fives or generally makes physical contact with interview subjects, I look more surprised.
“I’m sick of girls who don’t know how to high-five,” he says. He makes me try to do it “properly,” six times. He also makes me laugh; I’m nervous, and it’s so absurd. He loves it. He says, “Let me manhandle you.” Then he ambles off, hoping I’ll write something nice, as though he has never known how the news works, how many stories can be true.
“I think I would have done very well, as a writer, in the forties,” he says. “I think the last time America was a great country was then, or not long after. It was before Vietnam, before Watergate.”
Why I can't stand Sorkin, in four paragraphs.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Hahahahaha holy shit Sorkin is a fucking misogynist piece of shit who acts like everyone's grandpa they can't stand
I'm really enjoying the show and don't seem to have the same complaints others have (people that have actually seen anything else Sorkin has done), but one thing I'm not sure about is why Don seems to be the most normal/agreeable character.
The NEWS dialogue is really tight in a good way - I would watch this news show they are making.
The relationship banter and the conversationsThatHaveNoSpaceBetweenWhatPeopleAreSayingVeryQuickly that are filled with 5-7 witty "jokes" are beginning to grate.
If they could evolve this show into purely a "how the sausage is made" thing where they try to bring in sources, how they research the story, how they prep for the interviews, and then let the drama BE the news... this could become a top show for me.
As it is now, the good and the bad simply cancel each other out and it is just something to watch and hope it gets better.
Or worse, so I can give up on it.
either or.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
“Listen here, Internet girl,” he says, getting up. “It wouldn’t kill you to watch a film or pick up a newspaper once in a while.” I’m not sure how he’s forgotten that I am writing for a newspaper; looking over the publicist’s shoulder, I see that every reporter is from a print publication (do not see: Drew Magary). I remind him. I say also, factually, “I have a New York Times subscription and an HBO subscription. Any other advice?”
He looks surprised, then high-fives me. Being not a person who high-fives or generally makes physical contact with interview subjects, I look more surprised.
“I’m sick of girls who don’t know how to high-five,” he says. He makes me try to do it “properly,” six times. He also makes me laugh; I’m nervous, and it’s so absurd. He loves it. He says, “Let me manhandle you.” Then he ambles off, hoping I’ll write something nice, as though he has never known how the news works, how many stories can be true.
“I think I would have done very well, as a writer, in the forties,” he says. “I think the last time America was a great country was then, or not long after. It was before Vietnam, before Watergate.”
“Listen here, Internet girl,” he says, getting up. “It wouldn’t kill you to watch a film or pick up a newspaper once in a while.” I’m not sure how he’s forgotten that I am writing for a newspaper; looking over the publicist’s shoulder, I see that every reporter is from a print publication (do not see: Drew Magary). I remind him. I say also, factually, “I have a New York Times subscription and an HBO subscription. Any other advice?”
He looks surprised, then high-fives me. Being not a person who high-fives or generally makes physical contact with interview subjects, I look more surprised.
“I’m sick of girls who don’t know how to high-five,” he says. He makes me try to do it “properly,” six times. He also makes me laugh; I’m nervous, and it’s so absurd. He loves it. He says, “Let me manhandle you.” Then he ambles off, hoping I’ll write something nice, as though he has never known how the news works, how many stories can be true.
“I think I would have done very well, as a writer, in the forties,” he says. “I think the last time America was a great country was then, or not long after. It was before Vietnam, before Watergate.”
Why I can't stand Sorkin, in four paragraphs.
this makes sense once you realize sorkin has a speech impediment that makes him only able to communicate through argument
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
“Listen here, Internet girl,” he says, getting up. “It wouldn’t kill you to watch a film or pick up a newspaper once in a while.” I’m not sure how he’s forgotten that I am writing for a newspaper; looking over the publicist’s shoulder, I see that every reporter is from a print publication (do not see: Drew Magary). I remind him. I say also, factually, “I have a New York Times subscription and an HBO subscription. Any other advice?”
He looks surprised, then high-fives me. Being not a person who high-fives or generally makes physical contact with interview subjects, I look more surprised.
“I’m sick of girls who don’t know how to high-five,” he says. He makes me try to do it “properly,” six times. He also makes me laugh; I’m nervous, and it’s so absurd. He loves it. He says, “Let me manhandle you.” Then he ambles off, hoping I’ll write something nice, as though he has never known how the news works, how many stories can be true.
“I think I would have done very well, as a writer, in the forties,” he says. “I think the last time America was a great country was then, or not long after. It was before Vietnam, before Watergate.”
I liked the first episode, but that might be because I'm not that familiar with Sorkin and therefore don't rend my garments in frustration every time something Sorkinny happens.
But I do agree that the second episode sold the female characters short by having them both screw up in a ridiculous way because of something related to their love lives.
And it is pretty crazy that the woman who spent the past several years reporting from the field in Afghanistan doesn't know how to send an e-mail, since that would've been one of her only ways of getting in contact with people.
I watch this show for some Sorkin-ass Sorkin dialogue. And I got it, so I'm happy. But Mackenzie being that fucking retarded with electronic shit just makes her look like a flustered idiot for no goddamn reason.
Or act like professionals and avoid making a crack about their ex's sexual prowess when jobs are on the line.
Pill's character should've been fired and black-listed within the industry after pulling that shit. No character is endearing enough to make a mistake like that forgivable.
It's okay, Kasyn. People like us must suffer the slings and arrows of our peers; it's how we know we're the superior lot.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I saw episode two last night, thought it was niiiiiiiiiceeeeee.
But the sending of the mass email felt HELLA contrived.
Oh okay so you accidentally wrote "*sloan" when you were going to write "will". I get that you can accidentally send to the wrong person but you don't do that and simultaneously accidentally type an asterisk before their name.
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Oh okay so you accidentally wrote "*sloan" when you were going to write "will". I get that you can accidentally send to the wrong person but you don't do that and simultaneously accidentally type an asterisk before their name.
Yes that felt incredibly stupid. The first time it was kinda sorta funny, when she did it in the meeting - but the second time (although one could see that a mile coming) was just plain dumb.
That and the whole drama about the contents of the email made this episode really, really cringe-worthy.
I didnt take that as lol women cant use technology, I took it as partially lol olds cant use technology and partially lol IT is stupid.
Having watched the second episode I still like the show and plan to continue watching, but I did think the Pill shit was a little over the top. After the show ended they had a little thing with Sorkin and he said he wanted the cast to fail in the second episode because real people fail and its hard to connect with characters who are always succeeding. I think he could have had them fail without having both women shit themselves though.
Although I dont think the Emily Mortimer fuck up was all that bad.
Also, I was a little disappointed to see Olivia Munn on the show, that lady cant act. But I guess she didnt do anything too egregious so far so...
Sure, that works. Its what His Girl Friday would be if Cary Grant was an uncharismatic jerk and Rosalind Russell was a doormat.
amybdenum on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The faces Maggie pulls all the time makes me think this is The Office or some absurd comedy tv show. But when she's not making faces it's like a serious drama for a while, and then comedy when Mac is talking really fast and she's also quite funny.
The allegedly comedic elements are very broad. But then again, so are the political/socially critical elements of the show. But I'm not sure why I am annoyed by one and don't mind the other.
I kind of enjoyed the first episode, but dear god that was awful.
I guess the best argument against the criticism that "if anyone was that bad at their job in real life they would get fired," is that Sorkin got picked up for a second season of this.
The underlying thesis of The Newsroom is that the problems of TV news – no, the problems of news media – no, the problems of American political life – are really pretty easy to solve. What could turn things around, the story suggests, is one newsman who will look into a camera and speak the objective and easily discernible truth. And, it suggests, the only reason that hasn't happened anywhere (and is thus so revelatory) is that everyone in every media organization in the country is so obtuse that they've never thought of offering objective facts in a civil manner before, and is such a money-grubbing coward that they'd never do it if they did.
And the reason, under this same theory, that Americans are separated by deep and profound political divisions is simply that they don't know anything about anything. They are dumb and gullible and believe, en masse, whatever is put in front of them (MacKenzie calls one of the show's objectives "speaking truth to stupid"), the upside of which is that if you serve them better facts, you can improve them. That's the epiphany that comes to Will, and to his new executive producer MacKenzie McHale (Emily Mortimer), and to Charlie. It's so easy, they all realize. All you have to do is stop being a mindless stooge like everyone else is, and you can start to fix the fact that we are right now a nation of idiots. The title of the pilot episode is, in fact, "We Just Decided To," and that's absolutely, positively Sorkin's point: we fail each other not when we try but do not succeed, but when nobody "just decides to" do everything right.
Now maybe you believe that; maybe you don't. Many people believe every single word of those two paragraphs, both about the problems in media and about the problems in the general population. Those people might be right and they might be wrong, but they are hardly our idealistic dreamers. If Sorkin is idealistic – if he is optimistic – about anything, it is the ease with which he believes minds can be changed and problems can be solved with well-chosen zingers. Will McAvoy is hailed as a hero within the framework of the show because it is woven into the show's DNA that doing a better job of conveying information on cable news can fix what ails us irrespective of any divisive issues that might appear to exist, and that doing so is not actually difficult if you are willing to give a stern lecture to a couple of craven dummies in suits who tell you that you should pay attention to ratings. (MacKenzie says she would rather make a good show for a hundred people than a bad show for a million people, which raises the question of what good is done for civic engagement, exactly, by a good show watched by a hundred people and who would pay for it – questions people in the real world would have to consider that she does not.) (Note: I had originally misremembered it and described her saying a good show for ten people instead of a mediocre show for a million people. I think the point remains the same, but I meant to listen to it again and forgot; my flub.)
To believe it is this easy – to believe all it takes is "we just decided to," and to believe that outside of a New York cable newsroom is a undifferentiated ocean of people in desperate need of having their worldviews corrected with what the show likens to expert testimony – is to hold an optimistic view of the ease of social and cultural change, but a dim view of the people who actually exist in the country at the moment. It is to love America, but to be unable to stand Americans.
Well if you analyze news programs from a professionalism standpoint alone, they could use a fair amount of improvement
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It is to love America, but to be unable to stand Americans.
That's fair.
Though really, she's right...it makes no sense. If you think the issue with the news is that they pander to the lowest common denominator, and if only somebody would just speak the truth and educate them everything would be awesome...well, what the hell makes you think they'd watch or listen? A truthful, hard-hitting news show watched by no one doesn't actually do any good. And if the reason it's watched by no one is that nobody wants a truthful, hard-hitting news show...then that problem isn't really solvable. At least not by a newsroom. That has to start, I don't know, in classrooms. At dinner tables, with parents teaching their children not to be fucktards. But if the problem is that people want "bad" news shows, then making a good one does nothing but get those same people to change the channel, because somebody else (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) is going to give them what they want.
Which is just another level on which this show is essentially a fantasy. And not on the normal level that all fiction is fantasy, but just-short-of-hobbits-and-dragons fantasy.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I sometimes wonder if Aaron Sorkin isn't aware of the existence of Rachel Maddow. She's basically the heir to Murrow's throne.
Posts
Why I can't stand Sorkin, in four paragraphs.
fuck that guy
The NEWS dialogue is really tight in a good way - I would watch this news show they are making.
The relationship banter and the conversationsThatHaveNoSpaceBetweenWhatPeopleAreSayingVeryQuickly that are filled with 5-7 witty "jokes" are beginning to grate.
If they could evolve this show into purely a "how the sausage is made" thing where they try to bring in sources, how they research the story, how they prep for the interviews, and then let the drama BE the news... this could become a top show for me.
As it is now, the good and the bad simply cancel each other out and it is just something to watch and hope it gets better.
Or worse, so I can give up on it.
either or.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'll give it a chance.
But yeah, in the sober light of day, I can see some of the flaws. I still enjoy it, though.
...link for the first one?
this makes sense once you realize sorkin has a speech impediment that makes him only able to communicate through argument
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They're both from the same interview, actually.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/how-to-get-under-aaron-sorkins-skin-and-also-how-to-high-five-properly/article4363455/
Things that are better than True Blood:
The second season of The Killing
The legend of korra
The fourth season of Sons of Anarchy
The seventh season of Weeds
Whitney
that's the faintest praise imaginable, mcdermott
Fuck all y'all, I'm pleased with the show so far.
Yeah, but tits and ass.
But I do agree that the second episode sold the female characters short by having them both screw up in a ridiculous way because of something related to their love lives.
And it is pretty crazy that the woman who spent the past several years reporting from the field in Afghanistan doesn't know how to send an e-mail, since that would've been one of her only ways of getting in contact with people.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Or act like professionals and avoid making a crack about their ex's sexual prowess when jobs are on the line.
Pill's character should've been fired and black-listed within the industry after pulling that shit. No character is endearing enough to make a mistake like that forgivable.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
It's okay, Kasyn. People like us must suffer the slings and arrows of our peers; it's how we know we're the superior lot.
But the sending of the mass email felt HELLA contrived.
Oh okay so you accidentally wrote "*sloan" when you were going to write "will". I get that you can accidentally send to the wrong person but you don't do that and simultaneously accidentally type an asterisk before their name.
Yes that felt incredibly stupid. The first time it was kinda sorta funny, when she did it in the meeting - but the second time (although one could see that a mile coming) was just plain dumb.
That and the whole drama about the contents of the email made this episode really, really cringe-worthy.
I didnt take that as lol women cant use technology, I took it as partially lol olds cant use technology and partially lol IT is stupid.
Having watched the second episode I still like the show and plan to continue watching, but I did think the Pill shit was a little over the top. After the show ended they had a little thing with Sorkin and he said he wanted the cast to fail in the second episode because real people fail and its hard to connect with characters who are always succeeding. I think he could have had them fail without having both women shit themselves though.
Although I dont think the Emily Mortimer fuck up was all that bad.
Also, I was a little disappointed to see Olivia Munn on the show, that lady cant act. But I guess she didnt do anything too egregious so far so...
It seems to want to be like half comedy, but I don't feel the tone being that of a comedy.
Maggie is obviously meant to be funny, but it just comes off weird in a serious environment.
I like it, but do hope that it improves a lot.
Newsroom is OK, but it's mostly standard Sorkin so far. Enjoyable, but if you don't like his stuff this won't change your mind.
I guess the best argument against the criticism that "if anyone was that bad at their job in real life they would get fired," is that Sorkin got picked up for a second season of this.
The first two episodes of The Newsroom are definately better than the first two episodes of Sports Night, Studio 60, or West Wing.
This definately has the potential to be the best Sorkin show.
Edit: Actually, I may take back that spoiler. I appreciate the degree to which this show is a reinvention of material from other shows.
You're not a Sorkin fan, are you?
This is like Sports Night. It's a Comedy that's too good to be funny.
Hated the mass email gimmick.
Especially hated hearing false equivalence explained to news reporters like they're five year olds.
However...
Loved the actual new segments.
Loved Will's character, the head boss character, and the numbers guy character.
...and that's it. So I guess hate wins, three points to two.
It was being explained to the viewers like they were five year olds
Which would make sense, if the average Sorkin viewer needed it. But this is not Two and a Half Men, so it was probably unnecessary.
Still, didn't bother me all that much.
Despite all the problems this show has, and boy are there problems, I still feel like Daniels and Waterson will carry it for me. Easily.
Full article here.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's fair.
Though really, she's right...it makes no sense. If you think the issue with the news is that they pander to the lowest common denominator, and if only somebody would just speak the truth and educate them everything would be awesome...well, what the hell makes you think they'd watch or listen? A truthful, hard-hitting news show watched by no one doesn't actually do any good. And if the reason it's watched by no one is that nobody wants a truthful, hard-hitting news show...then that problem isn't really solvable. At least not by a newsroom. That has to start, I don't know, in classrooms. At dinner tables, with parents teaching their children not to be fucktards. But if the problem is that people want "bad" news shows, then making a good one does nothing but get those same people to change the channel, because somebody else (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) is going to give them what they want.
Which is just another level on which this show is essentially a fantasy. And not on the normal level that all fiction is fantasy, but just-short-of-hobbits-and-dragons fantasy.
And by basically, I mean indisputably.