-- The Newsroom, Season 1 Official Topic-- **SPOILERS**

#61tearsofragePosted 6/25/2012 3:53:08 PM
TheBWS posted...
DumbFokker2104 posted...
Should Sorkin have tried to be more unilateral in his approach to telling this story? Because that would have been the opposite of the message he was trying to convey (in my eyes) with this first episode.


There's nothing wrong with trying to convey a strong message, but The Newsroom is just having characters overtly debate these issues, despite the fact that they all seem to agree about everything. There's never really any tension, so it's not that interesting. Especially since it's a surprise to exactly no one how pandering and sensational TV news is.

I mean so far, the force they're rallying against is "those other guys, out there somewhere." These other empty news shows, or the stupid public. Both of which are only really depicted in the opening scene. It's not like the boss is in the way or anything, he's the one putting in motion the idea of doing a "real" news show. They only guy in the newsroom working against them doing the story wasn't even doing it because he's the supposed bad kind of news guy, he was just an ass for some reason.

And the show they did put didn't come across as revelatory, since it's the first show we've seen them do, and the whole episode they talked up how amazing Jeff Daniels is as an anchor. They reported a story that anyone else would have if they had had the same sources, but somehow, this makes them some kind of news paragon.


I actually feel like there was a lot of tension in the episode, but the tension wasn't between their ideas, it was between the characters. Emily Mortimer was trying to convince Jeff Daniels to let her on by trying to tell him things that she knew he felt (and, consequently, she did too), but obviously he didn't want to because of their past.

And also, there was a lot of disagreement between Jim and Don.

Generally the show seems to say "we're right, and here's why." Which, I'm hoping was just done to set the show up, and will end up being more of a backdrop to some actual stories.

I've watched Sports Night and The West Wing, and in my experience with those shows, that's exactly what Sorkin does. His first couple episodes were preachy, but both shows quickly became incredibly character centric. And the soapbox won't be going away, but it shouldn't be nearly as present as it was in the pilot.
---
"Oh look - a dumb idea just found a friend!"
- Emerson Cod
#62tearsofragePosted 6/25/2012 3:57:31 PM
ffhc2008 posted...
Solid A-. Don't understand all the critical venom it's received. Then again, I've loved every single thing Sorkin has done except for Studio 60. Show felt real, loved Jeff Daniels.


Anything political or about the news is going to be very heavily scrutinized. Add in the fact that Aaron Sorkin, while generally praised, is a pretty polarizing figure.

Like, conservatives heavily criticized The West Wing while it was on, but now that it's been off the air for a number of years, no one really remembers that, because The West Wing is just so well done. As far as I can tell, that's the reason for such mixed reviews.

Well, that, and Sorkin has a very distinct style, and if you don't like his style, there's no way you'll like his shows.
---
"Oh look - a dumb idea just found a friend!"
- Emerson Cod
#63CzarcasmPosted 6/25/2012 4:04:06 PM
TheBWS posted...
DumbFokker2104 posted...
Should Sorkin have tried to be more unilateral in his approach to telling this story? Because that would have been the opposite of the message he was trying to convey (in my eyes) with this first episode.


There's nothing wrong with trying to convey a strong message, but The Newsroom is just having characters overtly debate these issues, despite the fact that they all seem to agree about everything. There's never really any tension, so it's not that interesting. Especially since it's a surprise to exactly no one how pandering and sensational TV news is.

I mean so far, the force they're rallying against is "those other guys, out there somewhere." These other empty news shows, or the stupid public. Both of which are only really depicted in the opening scene. It's not like the boss is in the way or anything, he's the one putting in motion the idea of doing a "real" news show. They only guy in the newsroom working against them doing the story wasn't even doing it because he's the supposed bad kind of news guy, he was just an ass for some reason.

And the show they did put didn't come across as revelatory, since it's the first show we've seen them do, and the whole episode they talked up how amazing Jeff Daniels is as an anchor. They reported a story that anyone else would have if they had had the same sources, but somehow, this makes them some kind of news paragon.

Generally the show seems to say "we're right, and here's why." Which, I'm hoping was just done to set the show up, and will end up being more of a backdrop to some actual stories.


So you've seen the entire first season, then? This was the pilot episode, so we can assume that things will develop over the course of these next nine episodes.
#64GorenksPosted 6/25/2012 4:24:05 PM
I like it, but that's because I like Sorkin's style. I also like Daniels and Mortimer. It feels weird that Olivia Munn is in this (who was in the pilot for literally .5 seconds) she was so bad in that NBC comedy, I wonder if she'll be stuck in a super minor character role.
---
XBL/BF3PC: Boogiepop101
Steam ID: Mangopup
#65ffhc2008Posted 6/25/2012 4:34:03 PM
tearsofrage posted...
ffhc2008 posted...
Solid A-. Don't understand all the critical venom it's received. Then again, I've loved every single thing Sorkin has done except for Studio 60. Show felt real, loved Jeff Daniels.


Anything political or about the news is going to be very heavily scrutinized. Add in the fact that Aaron Sorkin, while generally praised, is a pretty polarizing figure.

Like, conservatives heavily criticized The West Wing while it was on, but now that it's been off the air for a number of years, no one really remembers that, because The West Wing is just so well done. As far as I can tell, that's the reason for such mixed reviews.

Well, that, and Sorkin has a very distinct style, and if you don't like his style, there's no way you'll like his shows.


But I can't think of a single conservative TV critic, at least not any national ones that I read. This isn't just angry conservatives kneejerking back at Sorkin.
---
Me: www.twitter.com/tvisgreat
Why aren't you watching Raising Hope?
#66OmegaFlare18Posted 6/25/2012 4:37:35 PM
Gorenks posted...
I like it, but that's because I like Sorkin's style. I also like Daniels and Mortimer. It feels weird that Olivia Munn is in this (who was in the pilot for literally .5 seconds) she was so bad in that NBC comedy, I wonder if she'll be stuck in a super minor character role.


what's funny is I couldn't even find her

I quite liked the show though that little section post opening and pre-oil rig story was kinda...slow.
---
PSN: MachineHero09
Gamertag: Mystyr E
#67KnightgeePosted 6/25/2012 5:49:09 PM
ffhc2008 posted...
Solid A-. Don't understand all the critical venom it's received.


Critics reviewed the first four episodes and to be fair, most said the pilot was the best part and that it was downhill from there, so none of us will really know what the critics were talking about until 3 weeks from now.
---
Life isn't a morality play. Poverty isn't a sign of a moral failing.
#68TheBWSPosted 6/25/2012 6:10:02 PM
DumbFokker2104 posted...
So you've seen the entire first season, then? This was the pilot episode, so we can assume that things will develop over the course of these next nine episodes.


I never said I don't expect things to develop. Actually I believe said the opposite.

tearsofrage posted...
I actually feel like there was a lot of tension in the episode, but the tension wasn't between their ideas, it was between the characters. Emily Mortimer was trying to convince Jeff Daniels to let her on by trying to tell him things that she knew he felt (and, consequently, she did too), but obviously he didn't want to because of their past.

And also, there was a lot of disagreement between Jim and Don.

Generally the show seems to say "we're right, and here's why." Which, I'm hoping was just done to set the show up, and will end up being more of a backdrop to some actual stories.

I've watched Sports Night and The West Wing, and in my experience with those shows, that's exactly what Sorkin does. His first couple episodes were preachy, but both shows quickly became incredibly character centric. And the soapbox won't be going away, but it shouldn't be nearly as present as it was in the pilot.


I see what you're saying about Will and Mackenzie, but you can't tell me that you actually thought she wasn't going to end up with the job. I enjoyed watching most if not all of their scenes together, but the outcome was never really in any doubt.

And Don was never in any position to stop the rest of the crew from proceeding with the story, not seriously.

I've seen Sports Night (Studio 60 too), and The West Wing is one of my favorite shows, so I'm pretty familiar with Sorkin's work. I felt like The Newsroom pilot was about equal parts the good and the bad of his writing, coming no where close to the heights he's hit before. I'm not even close to writing it off at this point, but the reviews I've read say it gets worse in each early episode. I'm going to watch them either way, but the strong pedigree is not enough to make me overly optimistic. Not when the actual show hasn't done anything particularly great yet.
---
What's the forth one?
#69EffectAndCausePosted 6/26/2012 4:31:55 PM
I wish the first 4 episodes weren't pre-screened, now people who've seen some negative reviews and will go into these episodes expecting them to suck, so through placebo effect, they will (to them).
---
http://i52.tinypic.com/s2yvzd.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/209m34j.jpg
#70TheBWSPosted 6/26/2012 4:41:58 PM
That's not what the placebo effect is. And it's about as easy to say that people will expect them to suck, so watching them with lowered expectations will lead to people saying it's not that bad.

Either way, who cares what people think or why they think it? I know I'm capable of making up my own mind even after hearing another person's opinion.
---
What's the forth one?