The Newsroom (HBO series)

[Adam H]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Newsro ... _TV_series)

I thought the series premiere was really good. The characters were fun and it was surprisingly exciting and funny. I had several hard belly laughs. The first scene with Jim and Mackenzie was hilarious.

I'm not sure the rest of the show will be able to match the pilot, though. The oil spill is about as exciting as it's going to get, right?

It did bug me how parts of it were just uncreative. "Jim Harper" (the relatable male character) develops a crush with the boss's assistant (the relatable female character) who is in an existing relationship with an unlikable guy who works in the same building... Really? REALLY? Well, I guess if it works then it works.

I'm not exactly sure this show deserves its own thread, but oh well. It's very US-centric, and critics rated it more poorly than I would have thought. A lot of that seems to be the preachy politics, but I wasn't put off at all and I'm pretty conservative (especially relative to this forum).

[ameretrifle]

I kind of lost interest halfway through, to be honest... I've seen some people suggesting that for the most part, you can only really watch one Sorkin show; after that, any of the others just seem too-- familiar, in the characters and the attitudes and especially in the lines, and not in a way that works. It'd describe my experience, I think. Like the opening speech: after a few seasons of The West Wing, the style of it, the cadence, the content, the whole notion of breaking into an impassioned defense of liberal ideals, is incredibly familiar, and seeing it in another show, in another context, takes away from it a lot. (Also, Langston Hughes did it a lot better.) You're familiar with his virtues, and you're quicker to see his flaws coming.

I think where I really lost interest was that incredibly childish business with the guy and his ex, taking a million-dollar pay cut just to be able to fire her, and not actually firing her, that might be simple or clean or just childish instead of cruel, just leaving the threat over her head like a sword of Damocles-- what pointless douchery. I'm tired of all these magical charismatic man-children, I've had enough of it, these "adult male" characters behaving like petulant children and everyone else just being okay with it because they're so super-awesome. Special Talented Dudes treating women like crap and not being looked down on for it has become a deal-breaker for me. As you might imagine, I don't watch a lot of television anymore. >_>

Apparently the critics got to see four episodes and didn't think it was going uphill? So I don't know if I'm giving it another chance. That's another problem with Sorkin's stylizied sameiness, excellent as it can be-- how much more of a chance do you really need to give something you've seen so many times before?

[Lucrece]

Seemed too gimmicky for me. I personally prefer shows for their characters, not their monologues. Veep was another big stinker for me -- some people might enjoy watching sociopathic cunt marathons on TV, but I already had reality TV available to fulfill those urges if I needed to.

HBO's big shows for me are and have been The No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency (goddamn director had to go and die, dooming such a wonderful cast and series), Game of Thrones, In Treatment, and Big Love before its final mess of a season (so very few people know how to close a series properly...). I know people love The Wire, but it did nothing for me. Ditto for Sopranos -- I'm not keen on criminal/mobster shows. I even like Enlightened, which is a polarizing show (some will hate it because it's not particularly active, just like In Treatment, but some will love it for the characters and the moving introspection).

It could be worse, though. This show could be True Blood, which looks like a MTV/CW series that landed on HBO for the explicit sex scenes.

[charliepanayi]

Seemed too gimmicky for me. I personally prefer shows for their characters, not their monologues. Veep was another big stinker for me -- some people might enjoy watching sociopathic cunt marathons on TV, but I already had reality TV available to fulfill those urges if I needed to.

HBO's big shows for me are and have been The No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency (goddamn director had to go and die, dooming such a wonderful cast and series), Game of Thrones, In Treatment, and Big Love before its final mess of a season (so very few people know how to close a series properly...). I know people love The Wire, but it did nothing for me. Ditto for Sopranos -- I'm not keen on criminal/mobster shows. I even like Enlightened, which is a polarizing show (some will hate it because it's not particularly active, just like In Treatment, but some will love it for the characters and the moving introspection).

It could be worse, though. This show could be True Blood, which looks like a MTV/CW series that landed on HBO for the explicit sex scenes.

You don't like Veep because it's a 'sociopathic cunt marathon' but you like Game of Thrones? Is this some parallel universe version of Game of Thrones?

[Lucrece]

Game of Thrones has sociopathic cunts. It also has Dany, Sam, Jon, Cat, Tyrion, Sansa, Arya. There's variety. Veep has no variety because the point of that satire is to show what a piranha pool DC is -- every single character in that show is an irredeemable asshole to another, and a large part of the writing in that show is coming up with insults the characters fling at each other. Detestable characters add color to a varied setting, but when a show is only about detestable characters, it loses appeal to me.

There are shows that straddle the line well enough like Louie, but Veep imo is not it. And I love Julia.

[charliepanayi]

Like I say, you must be watching a different version of Game of Thrones, many of the people in that are far worse than in something like Veep, which is funny at least in how mean its characters can be - they're hardly detestable anyway, they're often average people trapped in the rotten world of politics. And I advise you to never watch The Thick of It then, Malcolm Tucker really is a sociopathic cunt wanker.

As for The Newsroom, I have heard it's more Studio 60 and less The West Wing. I'm beginning to wonder if Sorkin is better when held in check by other factors, like he was with The Social Network.

[Adam H]

I think where I really lost interest was that incredibly childish business with the guy and his ex, taking a million-dollar pay cut just to be able to fire her, and not actually firing her, that might be simple or clean or just childish instead of cruel, just leaving the threat over her head like a sword of Damocles-- what pointless douchery. I'm tired of all these magical charismatic man-children, I've had enough of it, these "adult male" characters behaving like petulant children and everyone else just being okay with it because they're so super-awesome. Special Talented Dudes treating women like crap and not being looked down on for it has become a deal-breaker for me. As you might imagine, I don't watch a lot of television anymore. >_>

Apparently the critics got to see four episodes and didn't think it was going uphill? So I don't know if I'm giving it another chance. That's another problem with Sorkin's stylizied sameiness, excellent as it can be-- how much more of a chance do you really need to give something you've seen so many times before?

I thought the main anchor guy is like the boss from The Office: you aren't supposed to like him, he's just driving the plot while the likeable and relatable characters deal with all his crap.

And I haven't seen west wing or his other shows so I don't mind that it's all the same.

I'm going to agree with Lucrece that GoT has really really despicable characters but it also has characters that are genuinely sympathetic characters stuck in a crappy world.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

I thought the main anchor guy is like the boss from The Office: you aren't supposed to like him, he's just driving the plot while the likeable and relatable characters deal with all his crap.

That's the impression I got from the first episode, but the second episode really went out of its way to show that he's at least a little complex.

Lucrece: Have you the brain worms?

Overall, I like The Newsroom. It's not as good as The West Wing, but it's better than Studio 60 and Sports Night

[ameretrifle]

Saw a bit of the second episode... (My parents like it when I sit around with them while they watch things. At least it wasn't Final Destination 17 this time.)

Spoiler:

I liked the, "actually, no, I am not going to explain to everyone that our boss is not an ass, what the hell are you even saying, are you 13" scene, because that was actually a rational response. Like a scene from a comedy if there was actually someone thinking in the scene, rather than adopting the improv "must-say-yes-to-everything" mindset, which is good for comedy, but not crazy realistic, when taken to extremes.

Then there was the e-mail incident, which was a) a complete fucking cliche, b) kind of difficult to buy that a reporter in this day and age would be that epically ignorant (this coming from someone who regularly has to help her family with technology and e-mailing and remotes and things), c) my least favorite form of comedy (see above), and d) one of the most ridiculously shitty-Disney-high-school-comedy things I've seen in years. There was even the "Gee Willikers grabbing the phone out of your hand and breaking it" scene, even the last COMMERCIAL I saw that used this plot didn't go that far. Misdirecting a (rather goddamn inappropriate in the first place, but teenage gossip is a serious thing in high school, I guess... oh waaaaiiiit) email can be a mistake, but breaking personal property is ludicrously unprofessional. I hate that less viscerally than I did as a child and as a teenager, when I was terrified that I would someday turn into that, and then offended at the idea that no one between the ages of 13 and 18 was capable of any sort of perspective whatsoever; but it remains incredibly stupid.

I still don't think this is gonna be my cup of tea.

...Don't think I can argue with "better than Studio 60", though.

[Lucrece]

Like I say, you must be watching a different version of Game of Thrones, many of the people in that are far worse than in something like Veep, which is funny at least in how mean its characters can be - they're hardly detestable anyway, they're often average people trapped in the rotten world of politics. And I advise you to never watch The Thick of It then, Malcolm Tucker really is a sociopathic cunt wanker.

As for The Newsroom, I have heard it's more Studio 60 and less The West Wing. I'm beginning to wonder if Sorkin is better when held in check by other factors, like he was with The Social Network.

I'm watching a version of GoT where the characters and narrative are varied. It's not how bad some people are -- it's the cast. Feel free to explain away a bunch of petty bullies as justified by a stressful job environment, but it won't make it any more entertaining to me when there are no alternative characters to balance them out. I don't draw enjoyment from people needlessly insulting each other, and that show breathes it.

I just think other comedies do dark humor better.

I thought the main anchor guy is like the boss from The Office: you aren't supposed to like him, he's just driving the plot while the likeable and relatable characters deal with all his crap.

Lucrece: Have you the brain worms?

I'm not sure. One days it's cockroaches. The next it's worms. Depends on who's disagreeing with me.

[drego642]

I have to say I liked it. I just watched the first episode and sadly, HBO's gimmick of "make the first episode available to watch all over the place to hook people in" worked on me. Of course, I no longer have access to HBO and can't watch the rest of the episodes elsewhere, so I can only speak for the pilot. I might check on demand later.

[Mahonnant]

I've seen some people suggesting that for the most part, you can only really watch one Sorkin show; after that, any of the others just seem too-- familiar, in the characters and the attitudes and especially in the lines, and not in a way that works.

I am a big fan of Sorkin and I agree, there are a *lot* of things that he recycles from show to show but I mainly now take those as easter eggs (single cell paramecium, his Gilbert and Sullivan obsession...)
For the most part I find the show compelling, it has all the defaults of Sorkin's writing (everybody's a good guy, left-wing political stand (*), exaltation of americana, no real character development, unclosed story arcs that never get resolved) but that's something I've been expecting from him...

(*) Well the left wing political stand I actually agree with but I can understand how it might be an issue in the US.

[Gelsamel]

So far I like this series, especially the intro, it's really neat.

That being said:

Spoiler:

Wasn't 100% Happy with the treatment of the Fukushima bit (I was hoping that the 'Good News' take on that disaster would be to focus on the y'know, giant flood and fossil fuel power plants that were burning and killed heaps of people rather than the radiation which killed no one).

The idea that Sloan Sabbith could just pretend she fucked up her Japanese and that people would believe that (especially since Daisuke Tanaka used 'yon' and not 'shi' and y'know the grammar is completely wrong for her excuse) is a bit farfetched. Wouldn't all the competing news orgs just completely call them out on this thus making her excuse counterproductive? It's not like Sloan is the only Japanese speaking American. Similarly there are probably a bunch of Japanese who could easily tell that Sloan understood perfectly well.

Also that their translator, who TEPCO must have hired (since it was previously mentioned that they didn't have an english speaking spokesperson, hence Sloan talking to Daisuke), knew more about what to say and what not to say than the spokesman himself, a bit farfetched again, why not just tell Daisuke to answer properly so the translations -were- correct? Especially when you consider that there would almost certainly be some watchers who -do- speak Japanese and could pick out that the translations were wrong... so why not just coach Daisuke?

That Sloan just happened to be good old friends with the TEPCO spokesman felt really contrived... I mean we already have Jim happening to know random people in the first episode and Neal randomly knew the Egyptian guy. I hope they don't make this a pattern because I can only take so much before the concidences go from 'that could happen I guess' to 'this is just completely contrived'.

For some reason they didn't right what could have been a great character scene where Sloan personally takes extra steps to try and patch things up with Daisuke... a whole "I trusted you that that was off the record" bit type of thing. Instead it's just given a few minutes at the end with some poorly thought out excuse and the episode seems to close assuming that it worked out without ever showing it... we never get to see those characters interact after the interview which should have been something they put in.

Maybe there was less attention on the Sloan thing because the episode was Will's storytelling, but if that is the case I think narrative presentation hurt the episode.

[Gwydion]

So far I like this series, especially the intro, it's really neat.

That being said:

Spoiler:

Wasn't 100% Happy with the treatment of the Fukushima bit (I was hoping that the 'Good News' take on that disaster would be to focus on the y'know, giant flood and fossil fuel power plants that were burning and killed heaps of people rather than the radiation which killed no one).

The idea that Sloan Sabbith could just pretend she fucked up her Japanese and that people would believe that (especially since Daisuke Tanaka used 'yon' and not 'shi' and y'know the grammar is completely wrong for her excuse) is a bit farfetched. Wouldn't all the competing news orgs just completely call them out on this thus making her excuse counterproductive? It's not like Sloan is the only Japanese speaking American. Similarly there are probably a bunch of Japanese who could easily tell that Sloan understood perfectly well.

Also that their translator, who TEPCO must have hired (since it was previously mentioned that they didn't have an english speaking spokesperson, hence Sloan talking to Daisuke), knew more about what to say and what not to say than the spokesman himself, a bit farfetched again, why not just tell Daisuke to answer properly so the translations -were- correct? Especially when you consider that there would almost certainly be some watchers who -do- speak Japanese and could pick out that the translations were wrong... so why not just coach Daisuke?

That Sloan just happened to be good old friends with the TEPCO spokesman felt really contrived... I mean we already have Jim happening to know random people in the first episode and Neal randomly knew the Egyptian guy. I hope they don't make this a pattern because I can only take so much before the concidences go from 'that could happen I guess' to 'this is just completely contrived'.

For some reason they didn't right what could have been a great character scene where Sloan personally takes extra steps to try and patch things up with Daisuke... a whole "I trusted you that that was off the record" bit type of thing. Instead it's just given a few minutes at the end with some poorly thought out excuse and the episode seems to close assuming that it worked out without ever showing it... we never get to see those characters interact after the interview which should have been something they put in.

Maybe there was less attention on the Sloan thing because the episode was Will's storytelling, but if that is the case I think narrative presentation hurt the episode.

Spoiler:

Well, I agree with your later points, though probably the fact that it was Will telling a story in therapy it wouldn't make much sense to see all of the (private) followup. Still, the whole point of Sloan being able to say she messed up the Japanese translation was that it was a private conversation held earlier that day - the viewers and other networks would not have heard it, and there's no way to prove one way or another what was said. That was the whole point of it being an off-record conversation, and why they had to work so hard to turn it around.

If you can't accept a pretty generous amount of coincidence in shows like this, it very quickly gets out of control. For example, how often does one network seem to always have the first tip about a breaking story, or the only man on the ground, or the best camera shots? For that matter, why should so many tremendous events happen to 6 friends at a coffee shop, or one little fictional suburban street, or 4 third-graders in South Park, Colorado? If the characters only had a normal amount of coincidences and craziness, every show would be Seinfeld but less interesting.