# "The Newsroom" new HBO series from Sorkin



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

They showed the trailer after Game of Thrones and I watched it twice. Sorkin is a favorite and nice to see him return to the "newsroom".

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC8ovJYAU3U&feature=youtu.be[/media]


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

When is the first episode? Might be something I'll tune into. I just hope they tone down "Sorkin Speak" in this series. Those who watch some of his work will know what I mean.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

June 24th.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

I will have to try to remember to look for this. I love Sorkin's work, with the exception of West Wing (which was a fine show, just loaded up with too much of Sheen and too much liberal bent). Sorkin writes some of the best dialogs ever though, and can normally keep me entertained for a while.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> When is the first episode? Might be something I'll tune into. I just hope they tone down "Sorkin Speak" in this series. Those who watch some of his work will know what I mean.


And fast walking.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

This one sounds fairly liberal also. I have no problem with that but others may.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Looks GREAT. And I hope the do *not *tone down anything. Sorkin is Sorkin. In my opinion West Wing was the best tv show of all time and that's in no small part due to everything Sorkin added.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

busyba said:


> June 24th.


Probably the same night True Blood returns. :up: Sookie and Sorkie back to back.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Yes, Please!

Loves me some Sorkin!


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

This be awesome news. I too am a massive sorkin fan and hbo is an outlet that might actually let him get past a couple of seasons.

His behind the scenes shows are always good so i look forward to this even if I hate the news.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

I'm in. Sign me up. Is there a newsletter to which I can subscribe?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Sorkin must carry around a copy of the script for _Network_ as his personal bible. Both _Studio 60_ and this show start out with allusions to that movie.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Since Studio 60 I have been deprived shows featuring workaholics walking fast while talking non-stop down crowded hallways on their way to meetings where everyone leans back in their chairs and talks fast at each other.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Before I saw that preview: Meh - not really a fan of Jeff Daniels.

After I saw that preview: Looks really good!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

DeDondeEs said:


> Since Studio 60 I have been deprived shows featuring workaholics walking fast while talking non-stop down crowded hallways on their way to meetings where everyone leans back in their chairs and talks fast at each other.


Exactly!!

Huge hole in my TV viewing experience. Can't wait.


----------



## disco (Mar 27, 2000)

Great. Just when I was thinking About cutting HBO...this and Veep have me hooked!!


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Oh Please - Oh Please..I hope it is good. And more than 11 episodes in a season. And more than 1 season. I set a calendar reminder, plus I know someone will post something here as time gets closer.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

ADG said:


> Looks GREAT. And I hope the do *not *tone down anything. Sorkin is Sorkin. In my opinion West Wing was the best tv show of all time and that's in no small part due to everything Sorkin added.


+1



jilter said:


> Oh Please - Oh Please..I hope it is good. And more than 11 episodes in a season. And more than 1 season. I set a calendar reminder, plus I know someone will post something here as time gets closer.


This Sunday, 6/24.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I'm in. SP set. 

I also noticed that they have a 'making of...' program that precedes the premiere by several days so I'm going to check that out first.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

sieglinde said:


> This one sounds fairly liberal also. I have no problem with that but others may.


It does look like it will definitely lean liberal, but it's TV. I honestly don't care. If it's good drama, no biggie.

And this looks like it'll be good drama. I'm in.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> This one sounds fairly liberal also.


It's the news on a station other than Fox. Of course it's liberal!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> It's the news on a station other than Fox. Of course it's liberal!


As they say, reality has a liberal bias.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Any bits of it yet on the webs?


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

"the plot is literally old news: the BP oil spill, the Tea Party, the Arizona immigration law. That sounds like an innovative concept, but it turns the characters into back-seat drivers, telling us how the news should have been delivered. Naturally, McAvoy slices through crises by "speaking truth to stupid," in McHale's words. But he also seizes credit for "breaking stories"-like the political shenanigans of the Koch brothers"

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2012/06/25/120625crte_television_nussbaum

I'll pass on the agitprop. This from a guy with the effrontery to claim he has no political agenda? Not paying for this.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

DeDondeEs said:


> Since Studio 60 I have been deprived shows featuring workaholics walking fast while talking non-stop down crowded hallways on their way to meetings where everyone leans back in their chairs and talks fast at each other.


LOL!!!!

I enjoyed Studio 60 but Sports Night was way too dark to have a laugh track.

I roll my eyes at Sorkin's unsutble politics and try to enjoy the characters.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

philw1776 said:


> "the plot is literally old news: the BP oil spill, the Tea Party, the Arizona immigration law. That sounds like an innovative concept, but it turns the characters into back-seat drivers, telling us how the news should have been delivered. Naturally, McAvoy slices through crises by speaking truth to stupid, in McHales words. But he also seizes credit for breaking storieslike the political shenanigans of the Koch brothers"
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2012/06/25/120625crte_television_nussbaum
> 
> I'll pass on the agitprop. This from a guy with the effrontery to claim he has no political agenda? Not paying for this.


Love the subtitle, "The artificial intelligence of The Newsroom." Yeah, well, its Sorkin. Surprised? The man is talented but everything he touches just ooozes "I'm smarter than you, in a dumb sort of way".


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Jesda said:


> LOL!!!!
> 
> I enjoyed Studio 60 but Sports Night was way too dark to have a laugh track.


Sorkin never wanted the laugh track but ABC insisted. It was gone for the second season.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> When is the first episode? Might be something I'll tune into. I just hope they tone down "Sorkin Speak" in this series. Those who watch some of his work will know what I mean.


Whereas I crave me some Sorkin Speak. I have missed literate, witty, well-spoken characters on television.

Last week I sat for four hours or so watching WW clips on YouTube, so bad is my jones for some Sorkin dialogue.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Lori said:


> Sorkin never wanted the laugh track but ABC insisted. It was gone for the second season.


I didnt know that. Maybe I'll watch season 2 then.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Jesda said:


> I didnt know that. Maybe I'll watch season 2 then.


If you watch, you're better off starting from the beginning, and gritting your teeth through the laughter (if that kind of thing bothers you). It gradually decreases in quantity and volume over the first season.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> If you watch, you're better off starting from the beginning, and gritting your teeth through the laughter (if that kind of thing bothers you). It gradually decreases in quantity and volume over the first season.


Yeah, by the end of the first season, it's barely noticeable anymore. And completely gone the next year.

I miss Sports Night.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Is this available (legally) anywhere else? I don't have cable or satellite so I can't subscribe to HBO.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Robin said:


> Is this available (legally) anywhere else? I don't have cable or satellite so I can't subscribe to HBO.


Probably will be this situation:

[media]http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/game_of_thrones/1.jpg[/media]


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

LOL. Yeah, I figured. A girl can dream, eh?


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

The rat-a-tat-tat Sorkin walk and chat really gets on my nerves when it's over done but Jeff Daniels is one of my favorites. What to do.....


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I love Josh Molina


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> I love Josh Molina


Me, too.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Maureen Ryan over at HuffPo TV absolutely ravaged the show. The headline they went with was "The Most Painful Show of the Season: Aaron Sorkin's New HBO Show Gets Almost Everything Wrong."


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)




----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Maureen Ryan over at HuffPo TV absolutely ravaged the show.


And before everybody jumps on critics and "what do they know anyway" and all that, aren't critics usually the biggest Sorkin fans of all?

Dan Feinberg also hated it per his and Sepinwall's podcast this week.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Damn. Damn. Damn.
Of course, they love HBO's Girls, and I just can not see why.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Sepinwall's critique was significantly more muted than Maureen Ryan's above, but he too thought it was "too sanctimonious for its own good."

This really is disappointing. It'd be nice to have a good Sorkin series back on TV. (Actually, what I really want is "Sports Night," or maybe "West Wing" back on TV, but that ain't happening.)


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

LoadStar said:


> Sorkin must carry around a copy of the script for _Network_ as his personal bible. Both _Studio 60_ and this show start out with allusions to that movie.


I think they actually bring up Network in the Pilot of Studio 60. Maybe a few other times also.

And Network was the first thing I thought of when I saw this. But it's Sorkin, so I'll watch.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Hmmm... I thought all Sorkin shows were sanctimonious, and was surprised in past shows when no one seemed to care. Maybe embracing it is just what the doctor ordered? It's Sorkin, and it's HBO, so I'm going to watch at least 5 episodes no matter how terrible the reviews are.

And I like Girls, but mostly because of the character of Adam.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Tim Goodman is my go-to tv reviewer (Sepinwall is #2). He likes it much more than Sepinwall. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/re...ron-sorkin-jeff-daniels-emily-mortimer-335598


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Washington Post reviewer slammed it too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/enter...air-meltdown/2012/06/20/gJQApxuMqV_story.html


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Glad I don't care what reviewers say about tv shows.

I will watch it or not watch it based on my own enjoyment.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

marksman said:


> Glad I don't care what reviewers say about tv shows.
> 
> I will watch it or not watch it based on my own enjoyment.


Likewise, I make no apologies for trusting the opinions of those that I have proven to be in agreement with time and again.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

FWIW, a positive article from a local critic who is generally pretty smart and tasteful...

Aaron Sorkin writes the media's wrongs in 'The Newsroom,' but he also proposes some fixes


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Lori said:


> Whereas I crave me some Sorkin Speak. I have missed literate, witty, well-spoken characters on television.
> 
> Last week I sat for four hours or so watching WW clips on YouTube, so bad is my jones for some Sorkin dialogue.


It's not what they say, but how they say it. The characters in the shows of his I've seen all speak the same way. Short outbursts in a monotone delivery. It always sounds to me like 5th graders trying to say poetry after their teacher tells them not to "sing" the poem. I liked Sports night and Studio 60 because I liked the characters, but, the dialogue delivery could have been in any one of his shows.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> It's not what they say, but how they say it. The characters in the shows of his I've seen all speak the same way. Short outbursts in a monotone delivery. It always sounds to me like 5th graders trying to say poetry after their teacher tells them not to "sing" the poem. I liked Sports night and Studio 60 because I liked the characters, but, the dialogue delivery could have been in any one of his shows.


I'm curious if you feel the same way about movies from the 1940's and 1950's. Casablanca comes to mind. The dialogue of those movies is Sorkin-esque. I think Jesse Eisenberg delivered Sorkin dialogue as well as anyone I've seen. It's definitely not for every actor...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> I'm curious if you feel the same way about movies from the 1940's and 1950's. Casablanca comes to mind. The dialogue of those movies is Sorkin-esque. I think Jesse Eisenberg delivered Sorkin dialogue as well as anyone I've seen. It's definitely not for every actor...


Casablanca is one of my favorite movies, and yes, it is similar in tone to that of Sorkin. The difference? One, it's a movie and can deal with it in a movie and not have to hear it again. Two, Casablanca is better written than anything Sorkin has ever done....and I generally LIKE Sorkin stuff, just wish he'd change his dialogue style to something that closely resembles how people, you know, actually converse. Instead it sounds like they are delivering lines as if the character is the only one hearing what (s)he is saying. It gets distracting after awhile (for me anyway) and sometimes to the point where I lose what the characters are actually saying. This happened often during Studio 60 for me.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

What about David Mamet works? I believe he has actually stated that he doesn't much care about the delivery of lines in his movies. Makes for some interesting work. I don't mind it there, or in Sorkin works. What matters to me is the characters. I thought Studio 60 fell flat fairly quickly in that regard.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

I'm a huge fan of Sorkin, both artistically and politically, but more and more reviews I read are giving me pause for this one. I only pay for HBO when they have a tentpole series that keeps me totally engaged, such as Game of Thrones. Girls isn't enough to do it for now currently, so it will up to The Newsroom for them to keep getting my money. My suspicion is that I'll be dropping HBO until the return of Boardwalk Empire.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I follow several critics on Twitter, and almost none of them like it. It's ironic, because I think most of them were looking forward to it and had high expectations, but the first four episodes, which most critics have seen, apparently don't live up to those expectations. 

Perhaps it's because Sorkin is taking aim and finding fault with their chosen industry and professions, and maybe that's why they're so sensitive about it. But I've seen several specific issues pointed out that have little or nothing to do with the shots Sorkin takes at the media.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Good review from Sorkin lover Linda Holmes (@nprmonkeysee) at NPR. I read it because it was recommended by Sepinwall.



@sepinwall said:


> If any TV critic has a Masters in Sorkin, it's @nprmonkeysee. Her Newsroom review was worth the wait:
> 
> http://m.npr.org/story/155632386?ur...386/sorkins-newsroom-is-no-place-for-optimism


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I don't think the trailers/commercials for it look all that great. I'm going to give it a chance just because it's on HBO. I'll give it at least 2-3 episodes.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Watched it and wasn't disappointed.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

I haven't watched it yet. Will be doing that tonight.

Here is a good review from Maggie Furlong of HuffPo. She enjoyed the first 4 episodes she has seen so far.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maggie-furlong/the-newsroom-defense_b_1616355.html?utm_hp_ref=tv


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I enjoyed it.

I note that most of the reviews talk about things we haven't seen yet. They review multiple episodes and say that that show doesn't sustain. Because they've seen multiple episodes our impression of the first episode can't counter their impression of 4-5 episodes. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I started a spoiler's ok thread http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=489079


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I haven't watched it yet, so I'm bumping this thread instead of the episode thread.

The full pilot is available for free as an episode of HBO's "Newsroom" Podcast on iTunes, in case you'd like to watch it while on the go, or if you don't have HBO. Not sure how long it'll be up.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

The first 10 minutes or so I wasnt sure about the show. However, as it got into the actual reporting and showing how they work in the background it started to catch on. Half way thru the show my wife made it a season pass. I think it will do great on HBO. The way the show is so fast paced stopping for commercials would ruin it.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

There's a 'watch now' thing on my TiVo and I tried to watch, but the PQ was horrible (TiVo HD and crappy old SD TV). I guess I don't have enough bandwidth to work, or the HD is too old and creaky to downconvert and stream at the same time, or both.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Jake Tapper (from ABC News)'s review in _The New Republic_: 



> McAvoy sanctimoniously laments the deterioration of public discourse and the news media's complicity in it. But if that is the problem, his subsequent actions reveal a commitment to a uniformly partisan solution. McAvoy-and, by extension, Sorkin-preach political selflessness, but they practice pure partisanship; they extol the Fourth Estate's democratic duty, but they believe that responsibility consists mostly of criticizing Republicans. This is done through the oldest trick in the book for a Hollywood liberal: by having McAvoy be a "sane Republican" who looks at his party with sadness and anger.


Tapper gives quite a few examples, but they contain spoilers for the next 3-4 episodes.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Do a search for "emily mortimer lovely and amazing assessment dailymotion".


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> Jake Tapper (from ABC News)'s review in _The New Republic_:
> 
> Tapper gives quite a few examples, but they contain spoilers for the next 3-4 episodes.


Methinks the non-lamestream media doth protest too much.

After episode 2 - there's been almost no Sorkin preaching and about 85% very entertaining character fleshing out.

I think it's a keeper. These potshotters may be eating words by season end.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Have you seen subsequent episodes?


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

The show has a season 2 coming.

http://tvline.com/2012/07/02/hbo-renews-newsroom-season-2/

Also a season 6 of True Blood.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> Have you seen subsequent episodes?


I'm not supposed to reveal the GoBack time machine.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

> This is done through the oldest trick in the book for a Hollywood liberal: by having McAvoy be a "sane Republican" who looks at his party with sadness and anger.


But is the problem really that it's a tired trope, or that in today's world it's simply an unbelievable one?


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> Do a search for "emily mortimer lovely and amazing assessment dailymotion".


Nice. But she needs to do a search for "bikini wax"


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> Do a search for "emily mortimer lovely and amazing assessment dailymotion".


Every one I clicked on said there was a problem with the video.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Do a search for "emily mortimer lovely and amazing assessment dailymotion".


I was expecting him to say, "your knees... they're too sharp" 

btw... in the related videos on that one there's one of Allison Pill.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

Will the season finale be titled _What Kind of Day Has It Been_?



> "What Kind of Day Has It Been" is the 22nd episode of The West Wing, the season finale of the show's first season.
> ...
> "What Kind of Day Has It Been" is also the name of the first season finales of both the series Sports Night and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which were both created by Aaron Sorkin


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I finally saw the pilot last night. My wife and I enjoyed it a lot. I'm already annoyed by the music, though.

Maybe this is addressed in later episodes but it didn't seem obvious to me that he's a Republican at all, so I'm not sure where Jake Tapper is coming from there...?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> I finally saw the pilot last night. My wife and I enjoyed it a lot. I'm already annoyed by the music, though.
> 
> Maybe this is addressed in later episodes but it didn't seem obvious to me that he's a Republican at all, so I'm not sure where Jake Tapper is coming from there...?


He calls himself a Republican once or twice. But he doesn't at any time (through the first 3 eps) act or say anything Conservative or Republican at all. So what Tapper is saying is that Sorkin calls the character a Republican and then makes him as liberal as everyone else.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> He calls himself a Republican once or twice. But he doesn't at any time (through the first 3 eps) act or say anything Conservative or Republican at all. So what Tapper is saying is that Sorkin calls the character a Republican and then makes him as liberal as everyone else.


I don't recall this in episode 1. Will keep an eye on it.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> He calls himself a Republican once or twice. But he doesn't at any time (through the first 3 eps) act or say anything Conservative or Republican at all. So what Tapper is saying is that Sorkin calls the character a Republican and then makes him as liberal as everyone else.





Spoiler



He has not really done or said anything liberal. He has not done or said anything conservative either. What he has done is do very little to show what his opinion on anything is other than America is not great and no one reports real news anymore.

He went after the tea party, but what we saw him go after is something that is very much known, and that is that the Tea Party is not as grass roots as many want to make it out to be. Why should that be just a liberal viewpoint?

To be honest, the only thing they have consistently shown is that he is an ass to people and that he is in the beginning stages of curmudgeonry.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Shaunnick said:


> He went after the tea party, but what we saw him go after is something that is very much known, and that is that the Tea Party is not as grass roots as many want to make it out to be. Why should that be just a liberal viewpoint?


I think this is the non-spoiler thread and the individual episode threads are where this should be. But, since this already started, I'll chime in.

I agree with the comment about the tea party people. I didn't see it as a Republican attack, but more a search for the truth behind the supposed grass-roots movement. The two spokespeople who claimed to know nothing about the Koch brothers were either clueless or liars. That would seem to be good reporting, regardless of which party benefited the most from the revelation.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> Do a search for "emily mortimer lovely and amazing assessment dailymotion".


Ok, I had to look. Performing nude in a movie takes a certain amount of nerve, but to stand up and get that assessment really had to be hard.

Other than thinking she could stand to eat a sandwich or two, I thought she looked fine.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Idearat said:


> I think this is the non-spoiler thread and the individual episode threads are where this should be. But, since this already started, I'll chime in.
> 
> I agree with the comment about the tea party people. I didn't see it as a Republican attack, but more a search for the truth behind the supposed grass-roots movement. The two spokespeople who claimed to know nothing about the Koch brothers were either clueless or liars. That would seem to be good reporting, regardless of which party benefited the most from the revelation.


Doh!

I am sorry. I am going back to spoiler my post. I thought I was in the episode three thread. Sorry all!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> He calls himself a Republican once or twice. But he doesn't at any time (through the first 3 eps) act or say anything Conservative or Republican at all. So what Tapper is saying is that Sorkin calls the character a Republican and then makes him as liberal as everyone else.





Spoiler



When the subject of illegal immigrants came up, he repeatedly referred to "the guy who's job got taken."

"DEY TERK DER JERBS" is a common GOP/conservative refrain.


What has he said/done through the first 3 eps that makes him a liberal?


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Well, he says he's a Republican, but I don't think he says he's conservative.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

There's a comment about him being a RINO.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

He sounds kind of like my Dad...a life-long moderate Republican who has been left behind as the party has swerved severely to the right. He is as appalled by the Tea Party take-over as McAvoy is, and is disgusted that the Republicans effectively forced him to vote for Obama, who actually represents classic, Reagan-era Republican values better than the current crowd (not well, but better than them).


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

OK, he's clearly a republican based on the three episodes, but I still don't think the critic was accurate. I think Rob's assessment is spot on thus far. My wife actually thought that the network was supposed to be fox news-like! I didn't get that at all. Not sure if she still thinks that after 3 episodes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> OK, he's clearly a republican based on the three episodes, but I still don't think the critic was accurate. I think Rob's assessment is spot on thus far. My wife actually thought that the network was supposed to be fox news-like! I didn't get that at all. Not sure if she still thinks that after 3 episodes.


Even from the reviews I never got that it was supposed to be Fox-News like. In fact, I thought, what they were going to try and do was bring the network back to more serious news in the mold of Conkrite and Murrow and away from the sensationalism that's taken over. I thought that was the point that Sorkin was trying to make.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Even from the reviews I never got that it was supposed to be Fox-News like. In fact, I thought, what they were going to try and do was bring the network back to more serious news in the mold of Conkrite and Murrow and away from the sensationalism that's taken over. I thought that was the point that Sorkin was trying to make.


I think that's the "new" approach. I can see why my wife thought that the "old" approach was to be similar to fox news, especially given some of the events in episode 3.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> He calls himself a Republican once or twice. But he doesn't at any time (through the first 3 eps) act or say anything Conservative or Republican at all. So what Tapper is saying is that Sorkin calls the character a Republican and then makes him as liberal as everyone else.


To be fair nothing makes one a republican or democrat other then they claiming themselves so. There is no test or certification. People can decide what they want to be.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

marksman said:


> To be fair nothing makes one a republican or democrat other then they claiming themselves so. There is no test or certification. People can decide what they want to be.


That's for real people. TV characters who say they are Republican but act like Democrats are declared to be Republicans (by the writer who created them) in an attempt to give acting like a Democrat more credibility.

(Posted by someone who hasn't watched any of this show yet).


----------



## The Spud (Aug 28, 2002)

I just learned that a woman that I went to high school with is on this show.

Lisa Denke


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> I think that's the "new" approach. I can see why my wife thought that the "old" approach was to be similar to fox news, especially given some of the events in episode 3.


I'll spoil this since it talks about ep3:



Spoiler



After seeing ep 3, I'm convinced that my original though of the show was spot on. It appears that the Waterson character is trying to create a news show that is just old school news. But it appeared that Will took it off the rails. They tried to couch it as...well a newsman should have his opinions..


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Dan Rather has been reviewing the show for Gawker, and loves it.

http://gawker.com/5924306/dan-rathe...than-the-first-two-episodes-i-enjoyed-so-much

Of course, Dan Rather is extremely bitter about him being pushed out of CBS. Also, he has the same political beliefs and biases as Keith Olbermann, except he tried to pretend that he didn't.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

There's a great interview with Aaron Sorkin on Fresh Air

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/16/156841165/aaron-sorkin-the-writer-behind-the-newsroom

Listen online or in a podcast near you.

It occurred to me that it's true that Sorkin doesn't write action scenes. Almost everything is dialog. You never see a character doing internal acting or discovery or realization.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> He calls himself a Republican once or twice. But he doesn't at any time (through the first 3 eps) act or say anything Conservative or Republican at all. So what Tapper is saying is that Sorkin calls the character a Republican and then makes him as liberal as everyone else.


Not really. I think the point of the entire series thus far is that he's a fed up American, belonging to a party that now denounces science and facts, which is why his character goes after the Tea Party. The Tea Party influence over the Republican party itself means that his current _party_ isn't "Conservative or Republican at all" even if he's a Republican by name. Kind of like how Reagan used to be a Democrat but famously said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." I think it's much the same with Will McAvoy and the current Republican party on the show.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> Not really. I think the point of the entire series thus far is that he's a fed up American, belonging to a party that now denounces science and facts, which is why his character goes after the Tea Party. The Tea Party influence over the Republican party itself means that his current _party_ isn't "Conservative or Republican at all" even if he's a Republican by name. Kind of like how Reagan used to be a Democrat but famously said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." I think it's much the same with Will McAvoy and the current Republican party on the show.


But I think what Sorkin is saying is that the Repbulicans of McEvoy's generation is different than what it is today. Maybe that's just a liberal viewpoint in what he thought the Republican Party was. What Will strikes me is what the vast majority of both parties probably are. Somewhere in the middle who hates what both parties have become. Some of us feel we have to support the party no matter how far it's gone to one side, some feel betrayed and just become independent. I think Will is that way. He reminds me of Andrew Sullivan in that regard. A man who's a fiscal conservative, but just doesn't like the way his party has turned.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

That's exactly what I'm saying as well. It was pretty evident from his opening meltdown/rant from episode one scene one that was so dead-on.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Right, and again, he sounds a lot like my lifelong Republican father, who was dismayed by the Bush era Republican Party and is disgusted by the Tea Party era Republican Party.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

That's the result of the Republicans pushing the Rinos out. Some of us are left with nowhere to go.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Ereth said:


> That's the result of the Republicans pushing the Rinos out. Some of us are left with nowhere to go.


Psssst, the D's have a very big tent now if you want to come in.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Shaunnick said:


> Psssst, the D's have a very big tent now if you want to come in.


Not THAT big, LOL


----------

