The Newsroom

**Deleterious** · 06-29-2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

You got me.

Cheap shot on my part. Originally I was going to talk about Longmire but I didn't know if anyone was watching it.

**DTroppens** · 06-30-2012, 12:27 AM

Hey, I rip on shows all the time for not being "tight." Yet, I watch Beavis and Butthead.

**DTroppens** · 06-30-2012, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by chasfh

DTrop, I know exactly where you are coming from -- I come at the show from pretty close to the same place -- and it's really hard to articulate, but I'll take a shot here.

I don't think any show needs to reflect real life in the way we ourselves experience it, what with the long pauses and the boring banter and the shorthand sentence fragments and whatnot. But I also think it can go too far the other way, where everybody is so quick and glib that it becomes an academic exercise rather than a dramatic exercise. The excellent dramas of the last decade or so have mastered the arts of the pause, of dialogue pace, and of volume modulation. Done right, a single pause of a few seconds can impart much more drama into a scene than filling the same pause with 300 words reflecting everything the person is thinking at that moment.

this is part of what I was thinking in the second paragraph of my original post, although I didn't articulate this exact thought. But this very thing, adjusting the way dialogue is delivered, is one of the things I wish Sorkin could tighten up. I say "could" because that would go way against his M.O. It would be the same thing as asking me to shorten my posts. Can't be done.

I'm not shortening my posts anytime soon either. You tripped on some of what I meant.

**hueytaxi** · 06-30-2012, 12:43 AM

Longmire should shoot Lou Diamond Phillips. I like the guy when hosting on the Military Channel War Movies, but never liked his acting ability.

**chasfh** · 06-30-2012, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by jackson_cannery

I don't trust the vast majority of critics to distinguish between something they think is of poor quality or craftsmanship, and something they just personally didn't like. I would much rather hear from people in the industry who know how to create and produce the type of thing being discussed, to tell me whether or not it is of high quality.

As for whether the style, tone, etc. suits your personal tastes, that doesn't really have anything to do with if something is being done well or not. Cases in point for me: Anton Webern, the best NFL football games ever played, the best action movies ever made, etc. etc.

There are differences among the quality of critics. RottenTomatoes.com is a good example. They separate out a group into what they call "Top Critics", those have a long history of critiquing films or who generally work for major media vehicles, from the others representing such organizations such as Bullz-eye.com and One Guy's Opinion. You can feel pretty comfortable that the top critics are better vetted and more likely to separate their professional assessment from their personal opinions.

People in the industry, on the other hand, may have an interesting and valuable perspective, but they too may allow their personal feelings about the person they're discussing -- who may very well be a professional rival -- to color their objectivity, if that's what you're looking for. So careful about that source, too.

**chasfh** · 06-30-2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by jackson_cannery

I'm sure Sorkin would be the first to tell you that this show (and West Wing, et al., for that matter) are not trying to capture the rhythm and dialogue of everyday life. His stuff is glib and talky on purpose, well past the point of believably for non-scripted conversations. Just like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, or the auto-tune on Glee.

On purpose or not, it can drive me to the point of distraction and lead me to abandon his series. I abandoned West Wing sometime during the second season for just tos reason. It's too much.

**chasfh** · 06-30-2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Oblong

There is a difference when a show is intended to be entertaining and dramatic vs. one that is sending a message, like Sorkin is known to do. If you are sending a message then you have to work within the parameters of reality.

Bingo.

**chasfh** · 06-30-2012, 01:36 PM

By the way Stephen Colbert addressed this very criticism of Sorkin -- brilliantly, as usual -- when Colbert had him on his show on Thursday. I wish I could embed the video here and just that portion, but go to this page and start listening around 4:00 of the clip:

Aaron Sorkin - The Colbert Report - 2012-28-06 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

**Oblong** · 06-30-2012, 02:48 PM

This topic prompted me to bust out my West Wing season 1 DVD's and start watching. I noticed an example in the 3rd episode. Bartlett is bent on retaliating with the Syrians because they blew up one of our humanitarian planes, including the Naval Officer Doctor that the PResident just picked as his personal physician, father of a 10 day old baby. Leo's going on a rant, arguing with the President over his rage and says "You are just like the people who embrace capital punishment". No harm there, that's what people in that position would say. Then he goes on a rant within the rant explaining why they think those who embrace capital punishment are ineffective. That's the bit that bugged me, not because I disagree with him, I don't, but because it's not something the Chief of Staff would say to a President at that moment because the President would already know what he was talking about. That was SOrkin preaching to the audience that he thinks people who embrace capital punishment are hypocrites.

chas, I would give season 2 another chance. Season 2 and 3 are probably the best ones. Especially the last 5 or so of season 2. They brought in Peggy Noonan to "lighten" the partisan slant and make it more entertaining. I believe the character Aisnley that Emily Proctor played was meant to replicate her in the Reagan White House. Watching the first few episodes again of season 1 I notice it was a lot more preachy than it was in later season 2 and 3.

After season 5 and so is when I started to lose a lot of interest. I'd still watch but it wasn't Can't MIss

**chasfh** · 06-30-2012, 03:19 PM

I can try to do that, ob, but it was the style that lost me as much as the content ight have.

**DTroppens** · 06-30-2012, 04:32 PM

Amazing, Sorkin can't match the dialogue of his own show during this interview. In fact, if he was a Toastmaster, he'd lead the group with the most umss and errs. He was totally on the other side of the spectrum, where I can be found quite frequently. God, I hated that ums and errs thing. For Pete's sake I was just a guest there to hear my wife's speeches and they'd kill me.

His first answer to What makes america better pretty much is his New York Jets answer.

I guess I know why I never watched the West Wing.

Funny thing is I'm so popular TV culture deficient I didn't even know who Sorkin was until this thread. And I didn't realize I probably should've known forever who he was.

**hueytaxi** · 06-30-2012, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by DTroppens

Amazing, Sorkin can't match the dialogue of his own show during this interview. In fact, if he was a Toastmaster, he'd lead the group with the most umss and errs. He was totally on the other side of the spectrum, where I can be found quite frequently. God, I hated that ums and errs thing. For Pete's sake I was just a guest there to hear my wife's speeches and they'd kill me.

His first answer to What makes america better pretty much is his New York Jets answer.

I guess I know why I never watched the West Wing.

Funny thing is I'm so popular TV culture deficient I didn't even know who Sorkin was until this thread. And I didn't realize I probably should've known forever who he was.

Much with you on Sorkin and never watched WW. So this debut was original to me.

**Deleterious** · 07-20-2012, 05:00 PM

Shocked I missed this. I'm usually pretty good with this stuff. Guy in the first pic on the right is the guy in the bottom pic.

**chasfh** · 07-25-2012, 10:03 AM

Aaron Sorkin has fired his entire writing staff, except his ex-girlfriend. How Sorkinian of him.

Not sure how much impact this will have on the show, since Sorkin was more or less the only writer on the show, anyway.

**Shelton** · 07-25-2012, 02:15 PM

I really enjoy this show and don't find it all that different than his previous shows. For some reason, the critics seem to really dislike it. But most of the criticisms I have seen could be applied equally to his more critically acclaimed shows. It's not as if sorkin was any less preachy with the west wing.

I find it to be a good blend of comedy and drama and a nice way to spend an hour on a Sunday night. I don't care if he got the citizens united holding wrong or if he gets some technical detail incorrect with how blackberries are used. If you want a documentary, watch a documentary.

**monkeynuts** · 07-25-2012, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Shelton

I really enjoy this show and don't find it all that different than his previous shows. For some reason, the critics seem to really dislike it. But most of the criticisms I have seen could be applied equally to his more critically acclaimed shows. It's not as if sorkin was any less preachy with the west wing.

I find it to be a good blend of comedy and drama and a nice way to spend an hour on a Sunday night. I don't care if he got the citizens united holding wrong or if he gets some technical detail incorrect with how blackberries are used. If you want a documentary, watch a documentary.

I'm a big fan of the show as well and have been looking forward to each new episode. I don't really mind the preachiness - or the obvious liberal tilt - but some of the humor is way too corny and not clever enough (Dev Patel's whole Big Foot thing and last episode's running into the door thing). I love the Sorkinian dialogue.

**chasfh** · 07-25-2012, 07:20 PM

If they could dial down the didacticism and quit yelling at me so much, I think I would probably like it better.

**Oblong** · 07-25-2012, 07:51 PM

I can get why a critic would not like this after liking his previous work. If it's the same format and techniques then it can be boring.

Chuck, do you have Amazon Prime? The reason I ask is to let everyone know that the West Wing is now available on that. All 7 seasons.

**mtdman** · 07-25-2012, 09:22 PM

My brother likes this show, and my sister too. Which means if they like it, and it's on hbo, it's most likely liberal propaganda that I don't want anything to do with.

**hueytaxi** · 07-25-2012, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by mtdman

My brother likes this show, and my sister too. Which means if they like it, and it's on hbo, it's most likely liberal propaganda that I don't want anything to do with.

Give it a shot.....I'm as far to the right without being an extremist as one can be.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 08-03-2012, 03:57 PM

I'll watch more episodes to give it more of a chance, but it really hasn't captured my interest.

I think the various love interest angles are boring.

**chasfh** · 08-03-2012, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Oblong

I can get why a critic would not like this after liking his previous work. If it's the same format and techniques then it can be boring.

Chuck, do you have Amazon Prime? The reason I ask is to let everyone know that the West Wing is now available on that. All 7 seasons.

Maybe i should look into that. Thanks.

**chasfh** · 08-03-2012, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

I'll watch more episodes to give it more of a chance, but it really hasn't captured my interest.

I think the various love interest angles are boring.

Crashingly boring. This past episode was the last straw, i think. I just don't care about any of these people.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 08-03-2012, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by chasfh

I just don't care about any of these people.

And there it is.

I don't think Maggie is all that appealling or interesting or attractive. I find her annoying and pretentious to be frank. Jim is OK, but the whole 'I respect her too much to actively pursue her while she is unsure about where she stands with her douchebag boyfriend' is not endearing or admirable, it is torturous, tired, and unoriginal. Besides, why should I care if he gets the girl when he doesn't care enough to sack up and make a move when he has had chances?

Will and Mackenzie are just as bad, possibly worse. It is one thing to write in a sexual tension between the two, but what seemingly has been written in is the tension of a couple going through a nasty divorce. I think it detracts from the show in a major way, and I think her actions with the stupid (and frankly insultingly predictable) email gaffe and jealousy regarding him dating other women only serves to undermine this idea that she is sufficiently above it to garner his respect given where he is at. And he is an *******. An ******* with moments, but an ******* nonetheless.

**NeedMoreLike84** · 08-03-2012, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by DTroppens

Hey, I rip on shows all the time for not being "tight." Yet, I watch Beavis and Butthead.

The night that show returned, I was overcome with emotion. And I am not kidding.

**chasfh** · 08-04-2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

And there it is.

I don't think Maggie is all that appealling or interesting or attractive. I find her annoying and pretentious to be frank. Jim is OK, but the whole 'I respect her too much to actively pursue her while she is unsure about where she stands with her douchebag boyfriend' is not endearing or admirable, it is torturous, tired, and unoriginal. Besides, why should I care if he gets the girl when he doesn't care enough to sack up and make a move when he has had chances?

Will and Mackenzie are just as bad, possibly worse. It is one thing to write in a sexual tension between the two, but what seemingly has been written in is the tension of a couple going through a nasty divorce. I think it detracts from the show in a major way, and I think her actions with the stupid (and frankly insultingly predictable) email gaffe and jealousy regarding him dating other women only serves to undermine this idea that she is sufficiently above it to garner his respect given where he is at. And he is an *******. An ******* with moments, but an ******* nonetheless.

All spot on. I would only add that the situations, the scenes, they create to try to further these storylines seem too ridiculous to occur in real life. The email gaffe is one example. Jim getting nailed in the face with a door twice in the least believable way was another. Sorkin doesn't seem to know whether or when to be subtle or broad, and he goes back and forth between the two in seemingly random fashion.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 09-04-2012, 02:58 PM

My take having watched the whole season is meh. I liked some elements, but the romantic relationship stuff was tortured, IMO, and occupied far too much of the story lines. Cut out 90% of the romantic relationship stuff, and I'd probably really like the show.

**Oblong** · 09-04-2012, 03:20 PM

I was going to ask if this is worth watching now that a season has gone....

I need to catch up Boardwalk Empire... I got about halfway into season 2 then fell behind.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 09-04-2012, 03:26 PM

I'd say I wouldn't make a concerted effort to catch up.

If I had a lazy Saturday and wanted to knock a couple episodes out, I could see doing that, especially if one is a fan of Sorkin in general.

I'd recommend catching up on Boardwalk.

**Antrat** · 09-04-2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Oblong

I was going to ask if this is worth watching now that a season has gone....

I need to catch up Boardwalk Empire... I got about halfway into season 2 then fell behind.

You are in for a shock at the end of that season. Unless you already know. And if you don't, how the heck did you avoid finding out?

**Oblong** · 09-04-2012, 03:56 PM

No, I don't know.... I guess I'll be busy the next few nights. I think they are still on On Demand.

**hueytaxi** · 09-04-2012, 04:05 PM

I recommend it

**jackson_cannery** · 09-04-2012, 06:20 PM

How soon would something like this show up on Netflix?

**Shelton** · 09-04-2012, 08:36 PM

I liked the show. It was not a timeless classic, but I think it was rather unique in the way it covered the news of the recent past. At the same time, I think that hurt the show a bit, because it seemed to really hammer home that these people are fake. Of course, all fictional characters on tv are fake, but when a show is independent of our world, it is easier to lose yourself in the story and fictional world created.

I'm not articulating this well. Mad men references events of the past, but feels different. Maybe because it is so far removed it feels more fictional, and of course it doesn't rely on those events too much.

Too much of the drama in newsroom relied on our knowledge of the events, but of course we know what happens.

All in all, I enjoyed the show, but I didn't love it.

**Deleterious** · 09-12-2012, 09:52 PM

So the girl that plays Maggie tweeted a topless pic of herself. Imagine the mods wont like a link to that. But if you Google her name I'm sure it will come up.