Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Newsroom - new HBO series from Aaron Sorkin (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Wingnut
- Start date
Lost-style flashbacks. The romance stuff will be in the present, but all the news-reporting scenes will be flashbacks to 2008.
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Oh, I bet Sorkin could milk a season and a half out of this election.
Actually, there are only three episodes left. So if each season covers around a year, it'll always stay ahead.
Going back to this, I strongly disagree.The executive producer asked her staff whether something was unusual because she wanted to know whether it was newsworthy. She wasn't just shooting the breeze to make conversation. She wanted accurate information so that she could do her job.When your boss asks a yes-no question because she wants accurate information, the correct response is to give her the information she asked for. If you want to go off on a separate tangent, do it after answering the question, not instead of answering the question.I know that people in real life can be dense on this point, so in that regard maybe the dialogue was realistic — but Aaron Sorkin does not make his characters artificially dense for the sake of realism.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
You think Will considers her his "boss"? And that he wasn't to "speak his mind"?Not only are you mistaken about how movie dialogue is made (as a fundamental general rule, no less)... you miss the mark on the Will McAvoy character also.
Last edited by a moderator:
df1wiseguy
Footballguy
This show is fantistically entertaining. It appears, after reading through the first two pages of posts, that the same people that vote blindly based on allegiances to a party line will also judge this show with the same biased opinion.
This is just my opinion from reading the criticism's and not personally knowing a single person.
This show is simply outstanding.
I am up to the Gifford episode and if the last half of that episode was not entertaining and eye opening to the truth to how the news channels work than you may not be willing to enjoy this show. Today it is all about being thr first to report at the sacrifice of accurate professional reporting. Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks type mentality. Specifically in breaking news stories.
The episode where they are dicrediting what the mainstream right wing stations and personalities are spinning is absolutley amazing to me.
Both are reasons I do NOT watch ANY news channels. When it comes to current events such as Gifford or the BP fiasco I will not tune in intently until at least 24-48 hours afterwards.
PS - I have not party affiliation. Would like to see a poll that asks if you like/dislike the show and your party of choice.
This is just my opinion from reading the criticism's and not personally knowing a single person.
This show is simply outstanding.
I am up to the Gifford episode and if the last half of that episode was not entertaining and eye opening to the truth to how the news channels work than you may not be willing to enjoy this show. Today it is all about being thr first to report at the sacrifice of accurate professional reporting. Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks type mentality. Specifically in breaking news stories.
The episode where they are dicrediting what the mainstream right wing stations and personalities are spinning is absolutley amazing to me.
Both are reasons I do NOT watch ANY news channels. When it comes to current events such as Gifford or the BP fiasco I will not tune in intently until at least 24-48 hours afterwards.
PS - I have not party affiliation. Would like to see a poll that asks if you like/dislike the show and your party of choice.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a registered independent, and I don't watch any specific news channel at all. I really enjoy this show, and while it's clear that Sorkin has an agenda...he's doing a "decent" job of playing both sides here.What I would like to know is if he's keeping all of the facts straight on what the different news channels were reporting (i.e. Fox reporting Libya stuff in last nights episdoe), or is he spinning that stuff for entertainment value. I would assume everything's legit, but I honestly don't know (b/c I don't really watch the news)
Apple Jack
Footballguy
If you're just now having your eyes opened to this, you might want to hold off on the judgement of others.I'm still only enjoying this show on a very superficial level. It's a little frustrating and if I have to watch Don deliver another overwrought line/delivery like, "I want you to be the first people on this plane to know..." or "she's a person, a doctor pronounces her dead, not the news" or the other couple just like it, I'm going to puke. The guy is a good actor, but like Mortimer, Sorkin keeps giving him these painfully bloated shots at "moments" and they just come off as awkward. Some of the material is good, a lot of it is not. The show is very inconsistent, imo. And he keeps getting the sole writing credit, so I wonder if he really is doing all of it himself.
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan
Footballguy
I rarely watch a TV show more than once after it airs. I've already watched every one of the episodes at least three times. I think this is a terrific show. Love the writing, the cast, the relationships, the storylines. Everything. Don is quickly becoming my favorite character on the show.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
It has nothing to do with party lines. It is the fact that this is the worst show ever and I refuse to watch a single minute of it.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Odd. I thought it was the weakest. I think the one before last night was the strongest and then this one took a huge step back. I think Jeff Daniels (who has done a great job) put in his worst performance. The whole vicodin/mj thing just did not work well- it seemed so campy and over played. The stewardess in the airline was horrible. The police coming up to ask McAvoy if he knew the bodyguard just so they could get the police part of the 9/11 touch was such a stretch it was laughable. I just thought the writing was poor on this and very manufactured rather than touching. The directing was poor and the acting which has been strong mostly (except for Alison Pill aka Maggie) was a let down.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Did you ever watch The West Wing?
Fair points, but I really liked watching it.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
It was. Drugged up, chill Will >>> combative, stressed out Will.However, Maggie is not allowing me to maximize my enjoyment of this show. Her neurosis and machine-gun delivery of every sentence is beyond annoying. I care nothing about her, I care nothing about anything she says, and I hope she dies a gruesome death in the next episode.
packersfan
Footballguy
I think "Fun Don" and "Wasted Will" need to get their own musical/variety hour.
Koya
Footballguy
I very much enjoy the show, but a couple caveats, related to each other:
1. That monologue in the first episode simply kicked ####in' ###. It left SO much possibility open. The chance for someone with a conservative view to really take a calculated, logical, at times satirical look at the news, events and politics was intriguing. We get plenty from the left i.e. Steward and Colbert, and I thought in it's own way, this could serve as a dramedy that might serve some role in that way. BUT, the energy of that first episode has not quite lasted, and while I really enjoy the show, it's not as good as I'd hoped. Still very entertaining.
2. Maybe the biggest reason the show falls short, imo, is it's simply too far to the left. I mean, we are supposed to have a guy who is a straight line conservative talking head who might have some epiphanies, but when the epiphanies become a series of Democratic party talking points, its over the top and loses it's punch.
Even so, I find the show interesting, but it's just too Liberal soap box imo to become more than a fun watch with good writing and good character interplay. Yeah, thats a lot, but nothing "great"
1. That monologue in the first episode simply kicked ####in' ###. It left SO much possibility open. The chance for someone with a conservative view to really take a calculated, logical, at times satirical look at the news, events and politics was intriguing. We get plenty from the left i.e. Steward and Colbert, and I thought in it's own way, this could serve as a dramedy that might serve some role in that way. BUT, the energy of that first episode has not quite lasted, and while I really enjoy the show, it's not as good as I'd hoped. Still very entertaining.
2. Maybe the biggest reason the show falls short, imo, is it's simply too far to the left. I mean, we are supposed to have a guy who is a straight line conservative talking head who might have some epiphanies, but when the epiphanies become a series of Democratic party talking points, its over the top and loses it's punch.
Even so, I find the show interesting, but it's just too Liberal soap box imo to become more than a fun watch with good writing and good character interplay. Yeah, thats a lot, but nothing "great"
packersfan
Footballguy
I've enjoyed every episode a lot. I thought the second episode was the weakest but even that was still terrific. Each of the other episodes have been sensational in my opinion. I think the final 15 minutes or so of the fourth episode was about as perfect as anyone could produce on television. That's also the one Dan Rather raved about as well from a journalistic perspective.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Just curious, what are your favorite shows of the last 15 years?
packersfan
Footballguy
Too many to list. They range anywhere from "The Sopranos" to "The X-Files" to "24" and "Lost." I just thought those final moments were damn near perfect. I loved the dialogue, the way the group rallied together to work a big story, standing up for their principles at the end. Even the music (and I don't even like Coldplay). I thought it was excellent writing, acting and delivery.
GreatLakesMike
Footballguy
I'm still watching, but man, Maggie and Don are horrible.
TLEF316
Footballguy
That scene was hysterical and sadly probably pretty insightful.If you hate Nancy Grace then the middle of this show was for you. That wasn't a character assassination it was character murdering by a firing squad
That scene was hysterical and sadly probably pretty insightful.If you hate Nancy Grace then the middle of this show was for you. That wasn't a character assassination it was character murdering by a firing squad
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Can we start a petition to have the character Maggie killed by some rabid Tea Party member or something? I suspect the show would instantly improve by leaps and bounds if she were not in it.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
She was featured in only two scenes, each with exactly two and a half minutes of dialogue. Yes, I timed them. I despise her just that much. The episode as a whole was thoroughly enjoyable. Hopefully that correlation isn't lost on anyone.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
She's really not that bad. You guys are way too prone to being bothered. That much has been made clear by the Skyler talk in the BB thread.
Best episode of the season last night by a country mile, imo. Finally felt like all the horses were going in the same direction. Sorkin had all his pitches working, the director and actors handled them well, and I didn't get pulled out of the show at any point due to it's disjointedness, cheese, or terrible acting. Well, the Munn/Patel bit was a bit stiff, but it's hard to tell how much of that is deliberate because of the characters' social awkwardness. Paul Scheider was great, as was all of his dialog. And the Nancy Grace thing, while easy and obvious was pretty satisfying to watch.
That was the first episode where I didn't want it to end.
Best episode of the season last night by a country mile, imo. Finally felt like all the horses were going in the same direction. Sorkin had all his pitches working, the director and actors handled them well, and I didn't get pulled out of the show at any point due to it's disjointedness, cheese, or terrible acting. Well, the Munn/Patel bit was a bit stiff, but it's hard to tell how much of that is deliberate because of the characters' social awkwardness. Paul Scheider was great, as was all of his dialog. And the Nancy Grace thing, while easy and obvious was pretty satisfying to watch.
That was the first episode where I didn't want it to end.
I wonder how much of the ratings numbers were on point (was anyone not covering the Anthony trial?)
If true, it says a lot about our society that we get so wrapped up in a trivial matter (in a macro-sense) that we don't have time, or don't care about, more important issues. People care more about celebrities than real-world issues like the economy, employment, etc.
If true, it says a lot about our society that we get so wrapped up in a trivial matter (in a macro-sense) that we don't have time, or don't care about, more important issues. People care more about celebrities than real-world issues like the economy, employment, etc.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Drifter
Footballguy
General Malaise
Footballguy
General Malaise
Footballguy
Yeah, that was strange. I feel like I'm the only red blooded man on the planet who has never seen Olivia Munn act or do whatever it she does on TV, so I know next to nothing about her, but I like her character and wish they'd let her do more. I've watched CNBC at work for well over a decade now and the flagship financial news network has been a breeding ground for young, attractive, sharp female minds. Becky Quick, Michelle Caruso Cabrera, Maria Baritaroma (before her butt exploded), Trish Regan, Mandy Drury, Erin Burnett, Rebecca Jarvis, on and on and on....Olivia Munn is the epitome of the stereotype I describe and I'd really like Sorkin to give her more lines. But back off the goofy, rapid fire exchanges with minor characters like Patel. Give me more of her interacting with MacKenzie. That's good stuff.Maggie bugs me too. Less Maggie and much much more Tess.
Tess is hot!
Chadstroma
Footballguy
BTW, as an example of the writing on this being much more of an agenda than say The West Wing. The back and forth with MacKenzie and Sloan on the debt ceiling where Sloan says that the comments are not from liberals and then goes on to quote Jamie Dimon. Well, good ole' Jamie is a registered Democrat and long time supporter of Obama (going back to Obama's Illinois Senate days). It is a small and almost negligible point but it something that is not really debatable and speaks to the thing that irritates me the most about this show versus The West Wing in that the writing is not being true to the characters. It seems so often to be forced in order to make some political or social point. I do find it interesting that in that episode there was much discussion about seeming fair to get credibility. McAvoy says something like if he does not go after Weiner then it does not lend credibility in going after the Tea Party. Well, it seems to me that the whole point of McAvoy being a 'Republican' or Maggie a 'Christian' is to lend that credibility to the writing in going after whatever it is that Sorkin feels he needs to make a point about. It just really keeps this show from being enjoyable and teeters it on being not worth my time. If not for how much I have enjoyed Sorkin's past work and the fairly consistent and good work put in by Daniels and Waterston, I would not be sticking around.
GreatLakesMike
Footballguy
No clue either.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
You should do some Google searches, she is a very naughty girl.
packersfan
Footballguy
Margaret Johnson is her name. Wiki says she's a broadcast journalism major who started working on the show as a consultant before being offered a role on the show. Good call there, Mr. Sorkin.Talk To Me Tess
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Good episode last night. I'm mostly able to look past the partisan slant (I mean, what were you expecting here?) and appreciate the entertainment value - I think the Leona/Will subplot and resultant scheming/game playing is the most interesting part of the show for me. Like the critique above, you know how much of the show has to play out given it's setting in the past, so the plot lines not taken straight from 2008 politics are the most interesting to me (sans the hackneyed, predictable love triangles).
And Olivia Munn could butcher every line and every scene she's in and still be an asset. So ####### hot.
And Olivia Munn could butcher every line and every scene she's in and still be an asset. So ####### hot.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I get your issues with the stuff, particularly from your own natural lean. No problems with most of it.But to harp on the Maggie character being a Christian or defending her inquiry (when taken to task on it) as a Christian when it makes makes perfect and total sense for a person to do that, seems way off target.
Last edited by a moderator:
Beerguzzler
Footballguy
Echo this. I would prefer more of her being written in and less of Maggie. She is just such a waste of space and really there's no believable way to make her the object of 2 dudes.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
I'm okay with her being he object of two dudes. I cannot reconcile that alongside none of the men on the show making a run at Sloan.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Actually I'm o.k. with that, she's obviously out of their league - none of those nerds would ever approach her IRL.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Sure they could. She's an even bigger nerd. And they're as successful in their field as she is. I wouldn't be surprised if it's revealed that she dates beneath her pay grade whenever we get around to her social life.
packersfan
Footballguy
Who's going to, though? Will won't because he's still hung up on Mac.Jim doesn't have the stones. Besides, nothing wrong with Lisa. He should be hitting that with extreme regularity.Don's into Maggie. Slum Dog's got his girl.Charlie? For comedic value maybe.That pretty much leaves Reese. Sloan doesn't seem to have much "human knowledge" but she seems smart enough to figure out staying away from Reese is probably the best way to go.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
She's an even bigger nerd who looks like Olivia Munn. She's not just the hottest chick in the office, she's one of the hottest chicks on the planet. Your typical bullpen drone isn't going to have the stones to pull that kind of tail, however off her personality is.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
As someone who was critical of Christians before becoming one, I can understand the knocking of Bachmann. I can understand the perspective from a non-Christian. As a Christian who thinks that 'God told me' is overused in the Christian community, I can understand a Christian knocking Bachmann for it. The thing is that what I heard as for the knocking of Bachmann was that of a perspective of a non-Christian and that in how a Christian would knock her for it would sound very differently. As an example, I don't think a Christian would ever ask 'what does his voice sound like'. That is certainly a comment a non-Christian would say. The reason for this is there is a difference in understanding of the terminology used that a Christian understands and a non-Christian would not. I can forgive that in writing because I don't expect non-Christians to understand those differences. What is harder to forgive is how it continues to seem that the only reason for McAvoy to be a Republican is to attack the Tea Party. For Maggie to claim that she is a Christian, so she can attack Bachmann. He is not building characters. He is using make believe people to attack things he does not like.
We did not get this crap in The West Wing. The times that the 'right' or 'Christians' were attacked it was obviously part of the characters and the storyline was smooth in that way.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Don, Will, and Jim are not bullpen drones. And she's a woman, not a superhero. Becky Quick was married to a computer programmer for ####s sake. Now she's married to her EP.
Yeah, that was lame.