Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Caught the premiere of this last night. Quite liking it; Sorkin rocks.

A bit speechy, but they're establishing the premise; how the news should be done.

Anyone else see it?

Got it saved to watch here in a bit. Looking forward to it.

I thought it was OK, a little heavy handed with the preachiness maybe.

Finally got around to watching it. It is the backroom drama of Sports Night with the politics of The West Wing. It was decent, but not as good as I would have hoped for. I will continue to watch it though to see where it is headed. Setting it in the past and having them deal with real life stories is either a brilliant move or offensive as it undermines the people who actually broke the stories, or bit of both.

The highlight for me is watching Sam Waterson get drunk, angry, and curse. Wearing a bow tie just makes it all the better.

Although one of the rules of Threadcromancy is not to bump threads over 30 days old, the full rule is not to do so unless you have significantly new useful information to contribute.

Since Season 1 just wrapped, and this is the only Newsroom thread in the O-tizzle, we can re purpose this one.

Also, as the finale was just a few days ago, please spoiler tag anything regarding to the last episode! All others are open discussion imo.

-----------------------------------------

Things that I think really worked well:

Terry Crews. There is nothing about that guy that wasn't awesome, and every time he was on the show he made it a better episode.
Straight Talkin' - I really wish there actually was a news show like this.
Olivia Munn: Going into the show, I was really hostile to her because I didn't think much of her as an actress. I think I was wrong and she did a totally solid job.
The psychologist was also a very, very well acted role and the interplay was delightful.
Sam Watterson almost always delivered as well.


Things that I was indifferent about:
The drama between cabbage-patch-doll-face-girl and Don. Not interesting.
The drama between Jim Halpert and Cabbage Patch's roommate.

Indian IT guy. Way to cliche it, guys.

Things that I don't think worked at all:
The romance angle between Cabbage Patch and Jim Halpert. I already saw this storyline on The Office and I totally don't care to see it again.
The fact that Mac was always tripping over stuff for comedic effect. There is no reason to cheapen a brilliant character like that, even when you balance it out by showing Will having trouble with his pants.

I think I agree with everything Ouze said, though I am ok with Daniels being forced to fall for my amusement.

It is good and right that Terry Crewes made the top of the list.

I was surprised by how much I began not to hate Munn as well. I think I missed something in the last episode though.

I saw someone refer to it in the other thread as a Liberal fantasy, but it really seemed more like a traditional Republican's fantasy about trying to take the party back from the Tea Party. The one through line was the hijacking of the Republican Party by the Tea Party vis-a-vis the Koch Brothers.

Lisa is more interesting and prettier than Cabbage Patch, so Jim should be happy.

I like the show quite a bit. And I look forward to it coming back next year. There is actually nothing I can point to that I didn't like and a lot that I can point to as stellar.

Granted part of it is that I wish there was a news agency that actually reported that way on national television. But if they aren't screaming something silly or aren't yucking it up (ala Stewart who I love) then people don't tune in.

Ahtman- I put spoiler tags on that thing you were asking about. Yes, what you are suspecting is correct. That was a pretty neat surprise and complication, IMO.

I agree with pretty much all the positive comments above. Since I sparked this revival in the other thread by mentioning that I'm dissatisfied with some stuff, here are my thoughts in that area.

I guess most of it is just that the show sometimes feels too much like fantasy-wish-fulfillment of how people with they could smack the crazies and liars around. And while I concur that the Tea Party and its backers deserve pretty much all the fire they get in the show, I do think at least some flames should be shot at liberal morons too. The only instance I can think of where they did so, off the top of my head, was Weiner; and they really just kind of mentioned him being a dumbass (about the girls and the texting/tweeting) in passing. While The Daily Show is a totally different format, they do a great job of showing that the President and Liberals do and say some dumb stuff too, and it’s worth throwing at least a little bit of flak in that direction.

Some of the speeches and lectures feel like they go on a bit too long. I seem to remember Sorkin being a little more economical and not beating you over the head with things quite as much in West Wing, but maybe I was just younger and not as critical. I do love a good speech and castigation of people who deserve it. A nice eloquent soliloquy, with the addition of facts and figures and damning evidence, is always fun. You get a combination of good wordplay and courtroom-style argument. The concept that Will was a trial lawyer is a good one, as he does a great job ripping some witnesses and arguments to shreds. But a big part of what a trial lawyer does, of course, is pander to the jury’s emotion. Like Don talked about Nancy Grace doing to her audience. Too much of the time it feels like Sorkin’s serving up easy balls for his characters to spike hard, which is showy and fun, but not exactly challenging. I wish the show could be a bit more challenging to the audience, and give us more hard/ambiguous situations and moral dilemmas. Too much of the time it feels like the conclusions are too easy.



Talking about the writing more generally, I think just about everything about the internet that’s been on there has been clumsy or just badly written. It comes off like Sorkin doesn’t like or understand the internet, which makes writing a plotline involving it tough going. The whole Neil/troll story thing I think has kind of stunk on ice. About the only good moments it’s had were two of the scenes with Sloan. The first pitch to her just because of the comic value; and the other scene where Neil explained his failures to troll the economics site was pretty decent too. Poor Neil’s another character and actor who I think haven’t been used to their potential (except in the Egypt episode, maybe).

I have mixed feelings about the romantic plotlines. I think the basic Don/Maggie/Jim/Lisa concept is a solid one, and started well. I just don’t think it’s paid off well. In the time span the show’s covering, I think there should have been more progress and resolution. I like all the characters in it- Jim’s pretty solid. Lisa’s good, but I was not too impressed with her use in the Casey Anthony plotline. The scene in the boutique (while funny in spots) was not a great one; Jim and Maggie seemed to be playing each other’s parts. Maggie may be the weakest-written. She’s a bit too goody-goody and gets used too much as a stand-in for Sorkin-as-voice-of-conscience. Don’s probably the best character of the lot. He’s consistently funny, and someone needs to be the cynic. He did a really good job in that role, especially early, though honestly he’s made more progress than the relationships have. His loss of cynicism and more idealistic behavior late in the season are a pretty substantial transformation from where that character started. But that transformation is itself kind of disappointing, because it means there’s less of a contrast between him and the other characters.

I love Emily Mortimer, and I love Mac as a character, but I think the writing for her has definitely gone downhill as the season’s progressed. I think Mac gets handled a bit roughly and inartfully. A bit too histrionic and shrill at some points. You’d think after what happened in the blackout she might try to rein it in a bit. I think toward the end of the season (again), she’s also put her heart openly on a platter too much and too often.

Anyway, to wrap it up on some positive notes...

Waterston is great. I’ve never really liked Law & Order, so I haven’t enjoyed him this much in literally twenty years (I’ll Fly Away was awesome).

Crewes is great. Munn is mostly great. Daniels is almost completely great. I think he could be amazing if they didn’t spend quite so much of his airtime hitting easy punching bags.

Everytime Sam Waterston curses in that bow tie I have a nerdgasm. I love the Newsroom, it's a tad preachy, but I like the preachy. Good casting, decent characters. I could do without the bs work/love drama. I would love a moderator to ask a candidate tha says God told them to run to tell us what Gods voice sounds like.

I think the only possible answer to the last question would be "Samuel L. Jackson".

language warning: