The ending of the last episode was great, really strong, loving it!
[QUOTE=Occlusion;36606844]This is great. Pretty different to anything else HBO has done, more jokey.
However like has been said, i can see it getting in a rut.[/QUOTE]
hbo does jokey
it did curb your enthusiasm
I don't get why every critic hates this show?
And if the writers are really doing that little to help, I'm not going to complain that they're gone.
Dan Rather loves it and says it is an accurate depiction of a newsroom. He's all the matters.
I'll have to disagree with most of the posters in this thread and point out some of the glaring flaws of this show:
1. Aaron Sorkin once again displays his disregard for women, from the way MacKenzie acts recklessly on several occasions (stomping someone else's blackberry?), to Maggie's panic attack (she can't act btw). Save Sloan, it seems the writer cannot imagine any woman to act professionally and intelligently in a workspace environment.
2. The romance segments just seem forced, unnatural and unnecessary. I couldn't care less whether Jim or Don eventually land Maggie. Besides, the Jim/Maggie dynamic is obviously a poor attempt to mimic Office. At least give the dude a different name.
3. The biggest irony of this show is that it pretends that "truth is the center" and news broadcast should be all about giving facts to the audience. Well, what unbiased "facts" has the show delivered so far? When they brought on and abused the crap out of those two young adults from the tea party, isn't that exactly the form of argument that MacKenzie opposes? I'm only up to episode 3, but so far the show has not provided ONE piece of fact damaging to the liberal side. I fail to see how the "news" they are doing on this show is significantly different from say, Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly. It's still very much opinionated and blatantly biased.
In life, there are often contradictory facts that support either side of an argument. When you only select facts that support one side and ignore counter facts, that's not presenting neutrality.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;36851201]Dan Rather loves it and says it is an accurate depiction of a newsroom. He's all the matters.[/QUOTE]
Can't disagree with Dan Rather.
[QUOTE=jiafei9014;36851382]I'll have to disagree with most of the posters in this thread and point out some of the glaring flaws of this show:
1. Aaron Sorkin once again displays his disregard for women, from the way MacKenzie acts recklessly on several occasions (stomping someone else's blackberry?), to Maggie's panic attack (she can't act btw). Save Sloan, it seems the writer cannot imagine any woman to act professionally and intelligently in a workspace environment.
2. The romance segments just seem forced, unnatural and unnecessary. I couldn't care less whether Jim or Don eventually land Maggie. Besides, the Jim/Maggie dynamic is obviously a poor attempt to mimic Office. At least give the dude a different name.
3. The biggest irony of this show is that it pretends that "truth is the center" and news broadcast should be all about giving facts to the audience. Well, what unbiased "facts" has the show delivered so far? When they brought on and abused the crap out of those two young adults from the tea party, isn't that exactly the form of argument that MacKenzie opposes? I'm only up to episode 3, but so far the show has not provided ONE piece of fact damaging to the liberal side. I fail to see how the "news" they are doing on this show is significantly different from say, Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly. It's still very much opinionated and blatantly biased.
In life, there are often contradictory facts that support either side of an argument. When you only select facts that support one side and ignore counter facts, that's not presenting neutrality.[/QUOTE]
You are watching the show for the wrong reasons.
[QUOTE=Nanamil;36852850]You are watching the show for the wrong reasons.[/QUOTE]
Care to elaborate?
What am I supposed to be watching the show for? Numerous unnecessary office romance plots that ultimately add nothing of substance, or the terrible acting from pretty much every young member of the cast except Don, or the lack of a sensible,intriguing plot? Besides the fact that Will's career is at risk from his verbal assault on the tea party, nothing meaningful has taken place in the last four episodes. Would you not agree with this? Why am I suppposed to care about Jim sleeping with Maggie's roommate? Why are these two imbeciles getting so much airtime anyways? Isn't this show about Will Macavoy the badass standing up to the "ratings drive content" status quo? How come I only get 5 minutes of "news" and 55 minutes of fucking around, womanizing, relationships, big foot?
It's ironical that the belief that people are not "preternaturally stupid" lies at the very core of the newsroom's motivation to inform and educate its viewers, yet Aaron Sorkin apparently doesn't believe in his audiences' intelligence to just show us the "boring, technical" aspects of making news. Nope, he resorts to these contrived, meaningless interactions to fill up 60 minutes. Where's the healthy debate between Republicans and Democrats? You get an occasional snapshot of Will pointing out the idiocy of Republican propaganda...okay. Makes me chuckle a bit, but not very intellectually stimulating.
To those saying the critics don't know anything, well it appears audiences aren't too thrilled by this overwritten mess either. Take a look at any of the newsroom forums around and you'll see plenty of frustration with the direction this show is taking. Of course, the Internet demographic isn't a perfect representation of the entire audience, but let's see where the ratings go in the next few weeks.
[QUOTE=jiafei9014;36854442]Care to elaborate?
What am I supposed to be watching the show for? Numerous unnecessary office romance plots that ultimately add nothing of substance, or the terrible acting from pretty much every young member of the cast except Don, or the lack of a sensible,intriguing plot? Besides the fact that Will's career is at risk from his verbal assault on the tea party, nothing meaningful has taken place in the last four episodes. Would you not agree with this? Why am I suppposed to care about Jim sleeping with Maggie's roommate? Why are these two imbeciles getting so much airtime anyways? Isn't this show about Will Macavoy the badass standing up to the "ratings drive content" status quo? How come I only get 5 minutes of "news" and 55 minutes of fucking around, womanizing, relationships, big foot?
It's ironical that the belief that people are not "preternaturally stupid" lies at the very core of the newsroom's motivation to inform and educate its viewers, yet Aaron Sorkin apparently doesn't believe in his audiences' intelligence to just show us the "boring, technical" aspects of making news. Nope, he resorts to these contrived, meaningless interactions to fill up 60 minutes. Where's the healthy debate between Republicans and Democrats? You get an occasional snapshot of Will pointing out the idiocy of Republican propaganda...okay. Makes me chuckle a bit, but not very intellectually stimulating.
To those saying the critics don't know anything, well it appears audiences aren't too thrilled by this overwritten mess either. Take a look at any of the newsroom forums around and you'll see plenty of frustration with the direction this show is taking. Of course, the Internet demographic isn't a perfect representation of the entire audience, but let's see where the ratings go in the next few weeks.[/QUOTE]
It's not about the news, it's about the people presenting it. You get 55 minutes of them "fucking around" because that's what the show is about, not about the actual news presentation. You can watch the news for that. That's like complaining that Community doesn't have enough scenes where they are learning things in class.
Because The West Wing was all about politics right.
The show is entertaining and I like it. However I also agree with some of the criticism critics have aimed at it
It is quite smug and self-satisfied at times, and the dialogue pretty pretentious. The inclusion of the black characters is also embarrassingly token for a modern show
Also is anyone actually convinced by Will being a Republican
He's the most unconvincing Republican ever, it just seems as though they are claiming he is to try and pretend to be middle ground when really the show is left-leaning
[QUOTE=James*;36883232]
it just seems as though they are claiming he is to try and pretend to be middle ground when really the show is left-leaning[/QUOTE]
Yes, i think it's because he does not want to be associated with today's republicans.
This episode is going great, they way they're covering Egypt and the Arab Spring is giving me some major flashbacks to watching the news unravel on this forum alone.
Since they're moving fast, I wonder if they're gonna synchronize with our timing eventually.
[QUOTE=AutomataReturns;36855158]It's not about the news, it's about the people presenting it. You get 55 minutes of them "fucking around" because that's what the show is about, not about the actual news presentation. You can watch the news for that. That's like complaining that Community doesn't have enough scenes where they are learning things in class.[/QUOTE]
Except, the people are not interesting or even realistic? Who can you relate MacKenzie or Maggie or Jim to in the real news industry? If this show is all about "people", then it better add more dimensions and complexities to the characters besides yelling, having xanax attacks or stomping on blackberries...
Here are my thoughts about this show, I'm sure I'll get rated dumb again for this, but whatever:
1. Aaron Sorkin apparently thinks no woman can ever act professionally or intelligently in the workplace. Sloan is okay, but she seems to be getting dumbed down as well...
2. It is perfectly common sense to summon all your colleagues and immediate supervisors in on a Saturday morning to explain Big Foot.
3. There's way too much dialogue written into this show. Newsroom would be massively improved if 50% of the cast never spoke. What happened to nonverbal cues?
4. The cast is horribly imbalanced. Maybe with the exception of Don, nobody under the age of 40 has delivered a single memorable moment in the 4 episodes so far. In fact, Jane Fonda (God knows how old she is) arguably had one of the best exchanges on the show.....
5. It appears that some people (not all, obviously) are just pretending to like this show in order to look smart, much like how I used to carry around the Economist all day to pretend I knew anything about economics.
[QUOTE=jiafei9014;36894353]Except, the people are not interesting or even realistic? Who can you relate MacKenzie or Maggie or Jim to in the real news industry? If this show is all about "people", then it better add more dimensions and complexities to the characters besides yelling, having xanax attacks or stomping on blackberries...
Here are my thoughts about this show, I'm sure I'll get rated dumb again for this, but whatever:
1. Aaron Sorkin apparently thinks no woman can ever act professionally or intelligently in the workplace. Sloan is okay, but she seems to be getting dumbed down as well...
2. It is perfectly common sense to summon all your colleagues and immediate supervisors in on a Saturday morning to explain Big Foot.
3. There's way too much dialogue written into this show. Newsroom would be massively improved if 50% of the cast never spoke. What happened to nonverbal cues?
4. The cast is horribly imbalanced. Maybe with the exception of Don, nobody under the age of 40 has delivered a single memorable moment in the 4 episodes so far. In fact, Jane Fonda (God knows how old she is) arguably had one of the best exchanges on the show.....
5. It appears that some people (not all, obviously) are just pretending to like this show in order to look smart, much like how I used to carry around the Economist all day to pretend I knew anything about economics.[/QUOTE]
Who the hell cares? You either like the show and continue watching it or just stop watching and complaining about it.
Anyway that was a good episode and I hope they can keep this up.
[QUOTE=jiafei9014;36894353]Except, the people are not interesting or even realistic? Who can you relate MacKenzie or Maggie or Jim to in the real news industry? If this show is all about "people", then it better add more dimensions and complexities to the characters besides yelling, having xanax attacks or stomping on blackberries...
Here are my thoughts about this show, I'm sure I'll get rated dumb again for this, but whatever:
1. Aaron Sorkin apparently thinks no woman can ever act professionally or intelligently in the workplace. Sloan is okay, but she seems to be getting dumbed down as well...
2. It is perfectly common sense to summon all your colleagues and immediate supervisors in on a Saturday morning to explain Big Foot.
3. There's way too much dialogue written into this show. Newsroom would be massively improved if 50% of the cast never spoke. What happened to nonverbal cues?
4. The cast is horribly imbalanced. Maybe with the exception of Don, nobody under the age of 40 has delivered a single memorable moment in the 4 episodes so far. In fact, Jane Fonda (God knows how old she is) arguably had one of the best exchanges on the show.....
5. It appears that some people (not all, obviously) are just pretending to like this show in order to look smart, much like how I used to carry around the Economist all day to pretend I knew anything about economics.[/QUOTE]
1. Mac rivals Will in terms of ingenuity and intelligence in terms of the show. She's just less outspoken about it.
2. Oh, give it a rest, it's a little comedic relief to frame a character. It's a character drama, first and foremost.
3. Uh, character drama. It's all verbal exposition and character creation. Nobody wants to watch a show that's 50% nonverbal cues if there's no death and explosions. They're not made to replace conversation, they're meant to supplement it.
4. Because Dev Patel's shining moments in the last episode and Will and Maggie's primetime in ep 4 aren't memorable. Guess that's a matter of opinion, though, so we'll factor that one out, yeah?
5. And people post in debates on Facepunch to make them feel smart. They lie about reading books they've never read. They try to ease their way into conversations and then scramble from them when they have no idea what the content is about. People try to feel smart. That's no reason to hate a TV show, that's more just a reason to be disappointed in people in our species having inferiority complexes.
[QUOTE=jiafei9014;36894353]Except, the people are not interesting or even realistic? Who can you relate MacKenzie or Maggie or Jim to in the real news industry? If this show is all about "people", then it better add more dimensions and complexities to the characters besides yelling, having xanax attacks or stomping on blackberries...
Here are my thoughts about this show, I'm sure I'll get rated dumb again for this, but whatever:
1. Aaron Sorkin apparently thinks no woman can ever act professionally or intelligently in the workplace. Sloan is okay, but she seems to be getting dumbed down as well...
2. It is perfectly common sense to summon all your colleagues and immediate supervisors in on a Saturday morning to explain Big Foot.
3. There's way too much dialogue written into this show. Newsroom would be massively improved if 50% of the cast never spoke. What happened to nonverbal cues?
4. The cast is horribly imbalanced. Maybe with the exception of Don, nobody under the age of 40 has delivered a single memorable moment in the 4 episodes so far. In fact, Jane Fonda (God knows how old she is) arguably had one of the best exchanges on the show.....
5. It appears that some people (not all, obviously) are just pretending to like this show in order to look smart, much like how I used to carry around the Economist all day to pretend I knew anything about economics.[/QUOTE]
A series that deals with the goofs and imperfections of daily meadia obviously needs some level of abstraction to get a point across.
Rush Limbaurgh got served that episode
well it looks like they got money for wound make-up in the latest episode
Man Sorkin seems incapable of not writing about politics.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;36914958]Man Sorkin seems incapable of not writing about politics.[/QUOTE]
Eeeeeeh...
I don't remember the last episode having anything to do with politics.
[QUOTE=IdiotStorm;36901010]well it looks like they got money for wound make-up in the latest episode[/QUOTE]
Or they just beat the shit out of him [sp]with a rock no doubt[/sp] and took him to a doctor to have them patch him up. :v:
[QUOTE=Arachnidus;36896694]1. Mac rivals Will in terms of ingenuity and intelligence in terms of the show. She's just less outspoken about it.
2. Oh, give it a rest, it's a little comedic relief to frame a character. It's a character drama, first and foremost.
3. Uh, character drama. It's all verbal exposition and character creation. Nobody wants to watch a show that's 50% nonverbal cues if there's no death and explosions. They're not made to replace conversation, they're meant to supplement it.
4. Because Dev Patel's shining moments in the last episode and Will and Maggie's primetime in ep 4 aren't memorable. Guess that's a matter of opinion, though, so we'll factor that one out, yeah?
5. And people post in debates on Facepunch to make them feel smart. They lie about reading books they've never read. They try to ease their way into conversations and then scramble from them when they have no idea what the content is about. People try to feel smart. That's no reason to hate a TV show, that's more just a reason to be disappointed in people in our species having inferiority complexes.[/QUOTE]
1. Unsubstantiated.
2. It's one thing to be dramatic and another to be completely unrealistic.
3. I said 50% of the cast should never speak, not that the show needs 50% less dialogue. In fact, wouldn't you agree that giving more lines to Jane Fonda, Reese, Charlie, Sloan, Will instead of Maggie/Jim would be a good idea?
4. At the time of my post I hadn't seen episode 5, so you cannot really use that evidence against my claim. I have heard a few good things about episode 5, so hopefully the show is improving. Btw, Will does not belong in the sub-40 group.
5. The reason I'm venting about this show is simple: it has flashes of brilliance (the opening scene, Fonda's exchange with Charlie, the one line by Don in episode 4), that makes you want it to be good, but it is so, so far from good. If the show completely sucked, that would actually be better: I could just move on and not think about it anymore.
Frankly if you just come in here to tell us what you would change in the episodes, please stop. I'd rather discuss the problems they show in the series.
Episode 4 is definitely my favourite episode so far, but the most recent one was really awesome too. I can't wait to see where this show goes.
What'd you all think of tonight's episode? Felt like a nice paradigm switch, really liking how they presented it.
Next week looks great. Pretty sure it's [sp]the Osama raid[/sp].
Ugh, I missed the episode again. What time is it on EST? 9:30?
[editline]30th July 2012[/editline]
Nevermind, I think it's on now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
