# The Morning Show On Apple TV + SPOILERS



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Anyone watching? I’m enjoying it. I’ve binged the first 3 episodes. Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Anniston are great. Not sure how Steve Carrell ’s character’s story will play out but it’s got me interested. I’ll keep watching.


----------



## SoupMan (Mar 1, 2001)

Watched the first episode and liked it well enough. What’s the release schedule after these three? Weekly?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Yep, weekly.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Enjoyed it good behind the camera show.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Yeah, I enjoyed the first 3 episodes, though I don't think the writing is necessarily all that great with characters making these big long speeches out of nowhere for no reason...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Yeah, I enjoyed the first 3 episodes, though I don't think the writing is necessarily all that great with characters making these big long speeches out of nowhere for no reason...


Was the show written by Aaron Sorkin?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> Was the show written by Aaron Sorkin?


Not sure but it definitely has that vibe.

I'm in as well. Enjoyed the first three.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

It was not written by Sorkin but it feels like a Sorkin show for sure.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

For the true Sorkin: The Newsroom (American TV series) - Wikipedia.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

I watched all three episodes, and was surprised at how much I disliked it.

The superstar casting works to the show's detriment IMO, particularly in the case of Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, who have zero on-screen chemistry, and I think Apple would've been much better served casting unknowns (or at least lesser-knowns) for both roles. While the writing finally evens out a bit in the third episode, the first two are chock full of clumsy exposition, and the show is clearly trying to display all the wit of an Aaron Sorkin show with none of the writing talent to back it up.

The whole thing felt like an inferior combination of The Newsroom and Brian Stelter's book about morning TV (written just after Today fired Ann Curry). This makes sense, given that Stelter was a consulting producer on the show. It tried so hard to be "woke" with regard to the #MeToo movement, but in the end is essentially a carbon copy of Matt Lauer's scandal - down to the scene showing the switch that closed and locked Mitch's dressing room door from the inside, which Lauer is alleged to have had.

After teasing the show for two years, to be left with this dull, "going through the motions" exercise (at a reported cost of $15M per episode, for some reason) is super disappointing.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Neenahboy said:


> (...) Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, (...) have zero on-screen chemistry


To be fair, they've hardly been on-screen together for very many scenes and those where they have appeared together have been mostly antagonistic. I plan to wait until they appear as co-hosts before making any decisions about their chemistry...


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> To be fair, they've hardly been on-screen together for very many scenes and those where they have appeared together have been mostly antagonistic. I plan to wait until they appear as co-hosts before making any decisions about their chemistry...


But an "Eventually it gets better. Really. We promise." approach clearly isn't what Apple was going for here - nor will it suffice for a flagship show on a new service amid a glut of other streaming options.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Neenahboy said:


> After teasing the show for two years, to be left with this dull, "going through the motions" exercise *(at a reported cost of $15M per episode, for some reason)* is super disappointing.


Presumably, the $2M _per episode_ for each of Witherspoon and Aniston is a contributing factor.  But that still leaves a cool $11M . . . .

I gather that you prefer (at least, thus far) "The Newsroom"? If only that series had had a "The West Wing" length of a run (Sorkin had to leave for a pre-existing commitment).


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

I just finished the first three episodes and I have to say, I'm quite liking this! One question, I get who Steve Carell is but who was Martin Short? It just says "The Director" on IMDB and there are so many men in Hollywood that were booted at this point, I can't keep them straight.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Possibly Weinstein


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

No subtlety with that button under the desk in the dressing room.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

Gunnyman said:


> Possibly Weinstein


That was my initial guess but them giving his character title just "the director" I thought maybe I was wrong.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Probably a composite for all of the men caught up in #metoo


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

Gunnyman said:


> Probably a composite for all of the men caught up in #metoo


I sure hope Steve Carell's closet is squeaky clean. Playing a character like this, if there is anyone hiding in the shadows on him, they just may be inclined to come out with it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Was the show written by Aaron Sorkin?





Gunnyman said:


> It was not written by Sorkin but it feels like a Sorkin show for sure.


Sorkin would be so offended to be associated with the writing on this show. I've watched all four episodes and I'm enjoying the show quite a bit, but the dialogue is often clunky or expository. If they had someone like Sorkin on staff, the show would be significantly better.

Whoever does the hair for Aniston and Witherspoon needs to be fired. Why are they given hairstyles where they are constantly having to push strands of hair out of their face?


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Whoever does the hair for Aniston and Witherspoon needs to be fired. Why are they given hairstyles where they are constantly having to push strands of hair out of their face?


I've heard that actors like having things that they can work with during their performance to accentuate statements or mood. These could be glasses, cups, strand of hair, cigarette, etc. They can push their hair away (or whip their glasses off, or put their mug down, etc) to highlight dramatic moments. I would guess the hair strands are deliberately put there for this purpose. (Disclaimer, I haven't seen this show).


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

So far I'm really enjoying it. And I'm not sure if I'm supposed to like Cory Ellison as much as I do.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Just finished the first episode and I really liked it. Alex was pretty much what I was expecting, but Bradley was quite the surprise and I loved her feisty attitude. I love Jen and Reese so I had to watch just to see them. But ep 1 worked for me so I'll keep watching.

Oh, and I recognize and like a lot of the supporting cast, too.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

photoshopgrl said:


> So far I'm really enjoying it. And I'm not sure if I'm supposed to like Cory Ellison as much as I do.


I am loving hating Cory. Pretty obvious he played Alex to get her to name Bradley as her cohost...so evil and so entertaining!


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I've watched the first four episodes. I kinda like it, but. . . I'm not sure. I'm a bit annoyed by the recent TV trope of giving lead women characters traditionally male names. See also Star Trek Discovery's Michael. 

I think the main issue I have with this show is the same that I had with Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It's that I don't care. In a show like the West Wing, we cared because it was the White House. In court and medical dramas we care.

But here, it's just a morning TV show. They act as if it were the most important thing in the world, but in the age of a billion networks and streaming and the internet, who cares who the hosts of a morning TV show. It's not that important.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> I'm a bit annoyed by the recent TV trope of giving lead women characters traditionally male names. See also Star Trek Discovery's Michael.


That's more of a Bryan Fuller thing (one of _ST: DSC_'s creators). He also created
_Wonderfalls_ with Jaye Tyler, _Dead Like Me_, with Georgina "George" Lass and _Pushing Daisies_ with Charlotte "Chuck" Charles...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

photoshopgrl said:


> So far I'm really enjoying it. And I'm not sure if I'm supposed to like Cory Ellison as much as I do.


After the first episode, I thought he was definitely going to be the bad guy. But after four episodes, he's my favorite character. I hope the writers aren't intending him to be the bad guy and I'm just misreading it. I hope he continues to be the fun, innovative person doing the manipulating behind the scenes.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

DevdogAZ said:


> After the first episode, I thought he was definitely going to be the bad guy. But after four episodes, he's my favorite character. I hope the writers aren't intending him to be the bad guy and I'm just misreading it. I hope he continues to be the fun, innovative person doing the manipulating behind the scenes.


Yes this is how I feel. I like that he's appreciating the chaos of the situations and finding a way to make it work.


----------



## tivoknucklehead (Dec 12, 2002)

I've watched the first 5 episodes of Morning Show, See and For All Mankind and like all three, but IMHO The Morning Show is easily the best of the three. Cannot understand the mixed reviews on that show. it is very good adult TV


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

It's my favorite of the Apple TV+ shows. Although I have yet to see Dickinson.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

tivoknucklehead said:


> I've watched the first 5 episodes of Morning Show, See and For All Mankind and like all three, but IMHO The Morning Show is easily the best of the three. Cannot understand the mixed reviews on that show. it is very good adult TV


I've also really been enjoying the Morning Show, and really don't get some of the negative reviews.
Sure, it's not going to sweep the Emmy's, but I find it to be a good, solid, entertaining, and interesting drama.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I am wondering how Savannah Guthrie feels about it?


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

tivoknucklehead said:


> I've watched the first 5 episodes of Morning Show, See and For All Mankind and like all three, but IMHO The Morning Show is easily the best of the three. Cannot understand the mixed reviews on that show. it is very good adult TV


I've found over the years that what the 'professional' reviewers like or don't doesn't matter at all. In fact I find that most of the time the critics give thumbs down to a show, I enjoy it.

For me, I've yet to find any of the shows I've watched on AppleTV+ to be less than very good and well done, even ones I didn't think I'd like.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> I've also really been enjoying the Morning Show, and really don't get some of the negative reviews.
> Sure, it's not going to sweep the Emmy's, but I find it to be a good, solid, entertaining, and interesting drama.


I've found that professional reviewers are generally not very forgiving of shows about the behind-the-scenes workings of the media, especially the news media. Most reviewers didn't like The Newsroom, which was a fantastic show. I think you'd get similarly critical reviews if you asked lawyers to write reviews of legal shows, or doctors to write reviews of medical shows. Since these professional reviewers are journalists, they know the inner workings of real newsrooms and thus they see the flaws more than everyone else. Just like watching legal shows often drives me crazy.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I did not like episode 5 at all. Didn't enjoy Bradley out drinking with the other women nor her screwing the bartender. Alex's charity event, karaoke with Cory, and makeout scene with Mitch were just cringey. The only saving grace was Bradley and Cory meeting up at the elevator.

Episode 6 was much better. Wish I woke up looking like Bradley after a night of heavy drinking (heck even after not drinking!) I can't wait to see Bradley's report about the private fire fighters that the rich people, including Fred, are using. Good for Chip ignoring Fred's directive to kill that story. Wonder how Alex will react to that? 

Cory's scene in the screening room had me cracking up. He's such an entertaining character.

Will be interesting to see who Mitch throws under the bus when he talks to Bradley. 

Clair is interesting but I don't care at all about seeing her and Yanko screwing around. Will be fun to see her as Bradley's assistant.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I've watched all available episodes of this show and I like it a lot.. 

Maybe a show like this hits too close to home to professional reviewers and bloggers? Or maybe it works out better when you see more episodes and not just three? I dunno.. I'm not a pro, so what do I know?


Corey is interesting.. He's a little creepy. Smarmy too. He's up to something..Scheming. For himself. But I can't help but enjoy watching him do it. I like Bradley Jackson. Of course, I've always been a fan of Reese.. B

Early on, I was wondering how Steve Carrell would stay part of this show. But it became pretty clear. The show and network has a toxic culture. It goes to the very top. Mitch is gonna help expose it.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

My wife and I binged all the current episodes over the holiday weekend. I think she likes it more than I do. I am finding the show to be just OK. It isn't a bad show, but I don't find it to be that great either. 

Some of the things I don't particularly like is that this is supposed to be about a NEWS show, similar to Good Morning America or Today show. While those shows mix between hard news (in the first hour typically) and soft news, TMS appears to be almost exclusively a soft news show. I honestly feel it is closer to Today's 3rd hour (with Hoda & Kathy Lee/Savannah). Even when they try to show coming back from live report, Alex or Bradley often make a comment that seems just to be either jovial or almost unprofessional. I also am having a hard time with Bradley being some "up and coming star" that is being groomed to replace Alex. Reese Witherspoon is only 7 years younger than Jennifer Aniston. At 43, Bradley has obviously been through multiple stations and has not made it anywhere, it seems like a stretch that she would still be working in industry. 

However, I do like Reese Witherspoon in the show, I have always been a fan of hers and she really does shine in the show. I also have to love (to hate?) the character Corey. I am not sure if they are trying to setup a love affair between Bradley and Corey. 

Since I have a year of free ATV+, I will finish the season, but this would not be a show that would make me want to renew my subscription. Personally I found Dickinson much more entertaining.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

After reading some of the posts in this thread I was expecting to be disappointed though I was looking forward to it. Now having caught up on episodes, I really like it! In fact, I think this is the best work Steve Carell has done for the times we have seen him in this show. At least I am impressed.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Flashback episode!

Mitch takes advantage of Hannah.. She goes to complain... Boom.. She's head booker. Nice background video in the network president's office.. 

Yeah... That really is the way it works


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

jsmeeker said:


> Flashback episode!
> 
> Mitch takes advantage of Hannah.. She goes to complain... Boom.. She's head booker. Nice background video in the network president's office..
> 
> Yeah... That really is the way it works


Yeah I've been pretty on the fence about Mitch up to this but wow.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Episode 9 
Gugu Mbatha-Raw, the actress who plays Hannah, is amazing. I really like the entire cast of this show, but she is the best. The big 4 get all of the press, and will probably get the award noms, but Gugu is great and deserves an Emmy nomination.

I love this show. I've never been a fan of Steve Carell, so it's easy for me to hate Mitch. But I've always loved Jen so it makes it hard to not like Alex, but she has done a great job making me not like Alex!


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Episode 9
> Gugu Mbatha-Raw, the actress who plays Hannah, is amazing. I really like the entire cast of this show, but she is the best. The big 4 get all of the press, and will probably get the award noms, but Gugu is great and deserves an Emmy nomination.
> 
> I love this show. I've never been a fan of Steve Carell, so it's easy for me to hate Mitch. But I've always loved Jen so it makes it hard to not like Alex, but she has done a great job making me not like Alex!


Yes it is a guilty pleasure. Steve Carell has done a good job of sleezy. Last nights speech about everybody keeping things quiet was especially interesting. This show to me feels so much like Succession on HBO where everybody is conniving to get the anchor chair.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I assume this show is not a planned one season show? Like, Apple plans to bring it back for a season two with mostly the same cast? Particularly the big names? Trying to figure out how it can work out that Bradley and Alex are still hosting TMS together.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> I assume this show is not a planned one season show? Like, Apple plans to bring it back for a season two with mostly the same cast? Particularly the big names? Trying to figure out how it can work out that Bradley and Alex are still hosting TMS together.


It has been renewed for a second season along with most of the Apple originals.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just finished episode 9. Great episode. Very intrigued to see what happens to all these trains that are heading right for each other. Several people all trying to cover their asses, throw someone else under the bus, and stay on the corporate ladder. And then you've got Bradley and Cory who don't have any complicity in this and are just gleefully ready to light the fuse.

That scene between Claire and Yanko was very odd. Just moments after Claire told Hannah how much she loved Yanko and defended her relationship, she then turns around and breaks up with Yanko? That seemed to come out of nowhere.

The scene at the end between Mitch and Hannah was amazing. Mitch is so volatile, and Hannah finally stood up to him and said how it was for her. Mitch doesn't seem to understand that the network anchor who makes $20 million a year coming on to a woman is extremely intimidating and that he put these women in a position of choosing their jobs or their conscience. How many people when faced with a split-second decision like that (especially when drunk), would have the balls to stand up to their boss and potentially blow up their career?

I'm really interested to find out if the story Alex told Mitch was true. It seemed like she was just giving him a preview of the lie she would tell if he tried to go after the show, but they left it vague enough that viewers are left wondering whether Mitch actually raped Alex.

That extremely long pause by Chip when he was on the phone with Alex seemed to be him giving her a chance to let him in on what she had planned. Since she didn't say anything, I think that was all he needed to know that he has to abandon his loyalty to her if he wants to save his career.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Just finished episode 9. Great episode. Very intrigued to see what happens to all these trains that are heading right for each other. Several people all trying to cover their asses, throw someone else under the bus, and stay on the corporate ladder. And then you've got Bradley and Cory who don't have any complicity in this and are just gleefully ready to light the fuse.
> 
> That scene between Claire and Yanko was very odd. Just moments after Claire told Hannah how much she loved Yanko and defended her relationship, she then turns around and breaks up with Yanko? That seemed to come out of nowhere.


Yea, this seems to be a very odd story line. I am not sure where this is headed or how it relates to the main story line. Claire doesn't seem to know what she wants in her relationship with Yanko. in some ways, I think she was intrigued (turned-on?) by the secrecy and "rule breaking" part of their relationship. Now that it is been outed, at least to HR, she doesn't seem to want it anymore.



> The scene at the end between Mitch and Hannah was amazing. Mitch is so volatile, and Hannah finally stood up to him and said how it was for her. Mitch doesn't seem to understand that the network anchor who makes $20 million a year coming on to a woman is extremely intimidating and that he put these women in a position of choosing their jobs or their conscience. How many people when faced with a split-second decision like that (especially when drunk), would have the balls to stand up to their boss and potentially blow up their career?


After the first episodes portraying Mitch as either innocently accused casualty (at best) or someone with very poor judgement (at worst), the show has certainly moved him the creep level. I am pretty sure he knows what he was doing that night, but he also believed that he would always be the believable one (at least until his was fired).



> I'm really interested to find out if the story Alex told Mitch was true. It seemed like she was just giving him a preview of the lie she would tell if he tried to go after the show, but they left it vague enough that viewers are left wondering whether Mitch actually raped Alex.


 Color me jaded about Alex, but I don't think Mitch raped her. The way I took that scene was Alex took a mutually agreed upon encounter and twisted the narrative to fit her goals. Consider everyone thinks that Mitch is a sexual predator, which he is, who wouldn't believe that he would take advantage of Alex when she was drunk?



> That extremely long pause by Chip when he was on the phone with Alex seemed to be him giving her a chance to let him in on what she had planned. Since she didn't say anything, I think that was all he needed to know that he has to abandon his loyalty to her if he wants to save his career.


At this point, Chip is on his own. Everyone is scrambling for their own lifeboat.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

DevdogAZ said:


> The scene at the end between Mitch and Hannah was amazing. Mitch is so volatile, and Hannah finally stood up to him and said how it was for her. Mitch doesn't seem to understand that the network anchor who makes $20 million a year coming on to a woman is extremely intimidating and that he put these women in a position of choosing their jobs or their conscience. How many people when faced with a split-second decision like that (especially when drunk), would have the balls to stand up to their boss and potentially blow up their career?





TriBruin said:


> After the first episodes portraying Mitch as either innocently accused casualty (at best) or someone with very poor judgement (at worst), the show has certainly moved him the creep level. I am pretty sure he knows what he was doing that night, but he also believed that he would always be the believable one (at least until his was fired).


I believe her side of this entirely. I believe she didn't want it and didn't run from the building out of fear of blowing up her career. HOWEVER, I also truly believe he was/is such a rich arrogant schmuck that he did not know this. He is one of those rich celebrity types that honestly think every woman wants them and feel lucky when they get his attention. I do believe him when he talked about thinking she slept with him to get ahead. That's his entire problem. He has zero self awareness. And now, maybe he'll get some, albeit a little too late.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

photoshopgrl said:


> I believe her side of this entirely. I believe she didn't want it and didn't run from the building out of fear of blowing up her career. HOWEVER, I also truly believe he was/is such a rich arrogant schmuck that he did not know this. He is one of those rich celebrity types that honestly think every woman wants them and feel lucky when they get his attention. I do believe him when he talked about thinking she slept with him to get ahead. That's his entire problem. He has zero self awareness. And now, maybe he'll get some, albeit a little too late.


The one thing that scene lacked was her explaining to him how the promotion came about. Not because she tried to use the info to climb the ladder, but because she tried to report him and Fred made it clear that he was going to sweep it under the rug one way or another, so she was basically left with the choice to take a promotion or quit. I assume that explanation will come when it will be more dramatic, probably live on the air during Mitch's interview.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Just watched the last episode of the season (episode 10).

That was a master class in casting. Everyone, and I mean _everyone_ was cast so perfectly. Gugu Mbatha-Raw is such a standout that it nearly goes without saying. She's the type of talent that hopefully will be in just about every film and quality tv show going forward. She deserves it. I was also incredibly impressed with Mark Duplass. I've only really known him from The League, which I also enjoy for an entirely different reason, and that show centers around ad-lib d*ck and fart jokes. I never thought Mark Duplass had it in him to be so perfect in this role as Chip. Even side characters like Martin Short were so entertaining at times (and then utterly creepy) that from a character and acting standpoint he was amazing.

I really didn't have any expectations at all for this series, and by the end, it completely engrossed me. The look of how it was shot, the music, the tone, everything was spot on. I especially like the mindf%^ of how in some scenes you buy into Mitch's charisma and he seems like such a nice guy to all around, that you almost believe him when he says he's nothing like Martin Short's character. And then when you may not expect it, yeah, he confirms how messed up he really was/is.

This entire 10 episode season was a masterpiece as far as I'm concerned.
I loved it.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

So what's going to happen for season 2? I hope and assume that it's not going to still be all about Mitch's behavior...


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

Amnesia said:


> So what's going to happen for season 2? I hope and assume that it's not going to still be all about Mitch's behavior...


I think it's going to be about picking up the pieces and how a show/network recovers after this.

What a great finale! I was upset when it was over.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

WOW!

So, that's how you make it work so Bradley and Alex are together.. Damn.. Someone has to die.  Man... That was tough.. But what an awesome way to end the season. Just loved the wave Corey gives to gives to Fred as he tries to get into the control room to get them off the air.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

'The Morning Show' ends with a bang. Here's how they made it happen


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I love this show but I have a real problem with this finale. So unrealistic. No way Alex would blow up her career like this. And then locking out Fred from the control room??!! C'mon! I would have bought it if it was a dream/fantasy sequence. And then Alex throwing water on the face to the new producer? Why? It's her fault Chip got fired!


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

jsmeeker said:


> 'The Morning Show' ends with a bang. Here's how they made it happen


I love that last scene. I think he gets it. As I said before, a bit too late!


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> I love this show but I have a real problem with this finale. So unrealistic. No way Alex would blow up her career like this. And then locking out Fred from the control room??!! C'mon! I would have bought it if it was a dream/fantasy sequence. And then Alex throwing water on the face to the new producer? Why? It's her fault Chip got fired!


I didn't think it was unrealistic at all. The entire season she was breaking down. Mitch already told her the network wanted her gone (and so did Chip a bit later over a voicemail that she'll hear after the broadcast.) She had no leverage from the start, so little that she already potentially destroyed her career and risked immediate termination when she named Bradley as her co host without any authorization to do so.

Then her demeanor during her meeting with Fred when she slammed down her glass and said "Are you done?" etc. Her world at The Morning Show was already in turmoil, and so was her private life with even her daughter and her pending divorce. She was a losing control over every facet of her life, and as much as we all focus on Mitch not getting it, (or "did Mitch finally get it at the end?") it was starting to sink in to her even more the magnitude to which she too was also complicit in allowing Mitch's behavior to continue, and it now led to a suicide. That's a game changer.

When she helped get that Executive Producer to replace Chip, she knew she was making a deal with the devil, hopefully to right her ship. But inside she knew it was the wrong call, and that EP's comment to "do it for Hannah" was nauseating. He didn't even know her, or anyone at the show yet. Not his place. All of these elements were not only making her second guess her brash decision to team up with Fred, but after Hannah died, she now knew she was on team cover up. That tips the scales from her having initial plausible deniability of the "good old boys" culture at The Morning Show when Mitch was there, to now being part of an outright sexual misconduct cover up to that led to a woman's suicide. She wasn't helping to just replace Chip, they were pinning all of it on him (which was wrong and she knew it), and she was helping to allow Fred come out unscathed and ultimately have nothing change.

That was enough to make her snap in a monumental way, and it was an epic meltdown that makes total sense to me.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I stand by my thoughts. The whole scene felt disingenuous to me and kinda manipulative towards the audience. This was my favorite show on Apple TV+. I'm still looking forward to the second season...albeit with a little trepidation.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Wow, what a finale. @inaka I agree with your description of why Alex finally snapped. She is such a complex character (as are all of the characters in this show.) She's a narcissist but she also cares about people. You could tell she was really conflicted about Chip and how Fred was laying all of the blame on Chip. And the new producer totally deserved the glass of water in the face.

I love the scenes between Alex and Bradley when they fight and then stop fighting and come together. Reese and Jen have had great chemistry since Reese was Jen's sister on Friends. I love their scenes together. I enjoy when they both go away mad, too. 

And Corey taking over in the control room and making sure Fred was locked out, wow, that was great!

RIP Hannah. 

Will be very interesting to see what happens in the second season.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Up front, I haven't watched this (nor do I have any desire to watch it). What's fascinating is to watch the change in attitude about this show in this thread after it started getting nominated for awards.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

A lot of us were into and enjoying the show before that and inspite of early mixed reviews


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> A lot of us were into and enjoying the show before that and inspite of early mixed reviews


+1 I have enjoyed it and "For All Mankind" since episode 1.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

When Alex and Chip were passing on the escalators and she clearly was trying to avoid eye contact, I expected Chip to say "Et tu, Brute?"

Loved the final scene and how they locked Fred out and just went off. However, I felt kind of bad for the new producer guy. Obviously from the main characters' perspective, everything he did was cringeworthy. But if you look at the impossible situation he just fell into, he was just doing the best he could and saying what anyone in his position would say. It will be interesting to see what happens with his character when the new season starts.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Wow, what a finale. @inaka I agree with your description of why Alex finally snapped. She is such a complex character (as are all of the characters in this show.) She's a narcissist but she also cares about people.


That's what I really liked so much about this show. Life and people are complicated.

It would have been really easy to always show Mitch as only a creep. Ewww...goodbye, good riddance. But we get to also see him many times in flashback sequences as being the most charming guy in the room. So it's sad and even more creepy when a guy you actually like in many scenes, does things so very wrong in others. Same with Alex. She put off her divorce for so long because she didn't want her daughter to hate her, and was trying to protect her, but in the end, it looks like a narsassitjc move (might have been) and when they fight, Alex literally hits a breaking point and storming out from her daughter's dorm saying, "F you, kid!". Man, she even took back the pizza. That was cold. 

Another thing I admired about this show was actually the relationship between the weather guy Yanko and his young "girlfriend" Claire. By adding their relationship too, they showed that life is complicated. Many people _do_ actually meet and date at work, and not every relationship is one that's predatory in nature, or one where the older male is even the one taking advantage of a younger female. Yanko actually was in love and cared for her, which was a stark contrast to how Mitch used people like a piece of meat. So for Yanko/Claire too, it was really tough for them to navigate things in this new #metoo climate, and the show could have easily omitted this relationship entirely to make things more black/white. Even the (sexual?) tension between Bradley and Cory is one that appears to be completely non-sexual, but it's an intimate relationship nontheless, and it might toe the line of being inappropriate to some.

By adding all these complex and three dimensional characters, it really makes you ask yourself when does a workplace relationship cross the line? And the answer, like Alex's character (and others) is, "It's complicated".


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

jsmeeker said:


> A lot of us were into and enjoying the show before that and inspite of early mixed reviews


Yeah I was hooked after the first episode!


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

inaka said:


> TShe put off her divorce for so long because she didn't want her daughter to hate her, and was trying to protect her, but in the end, it looks like a narsassitjc move (might have been) and when they fight, Alex literally hits a breaking point and storming out from her daughter's dorm saying, "F you, kid!". Man, she even took back the pizza. That was cold.


Not only did she take back the pizza, but she then threw it in the trash! OMG, I cannot imagine throwing away a perfectly good pizza no matter how mad I was! I did wonder if one of the kids in the hallway pulled the pizza box out of the trash after seeing Alex throw it away? I'm pretty sure I would have when I was a poor student.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

photoshopgrl said:


> Yeah I was hooked after the first episode!


I started watching for the cast, Jen and Reese specifically. I stayed because it kept getting better and better. It ended the season as a great show.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> A lot of us were into and enjoying the show before that and inspite of early mixed reviews


Yeah, I avoid any thread with spoilers until I caught up. That's why I only posted here after episode 9 when I caught up.
I didn't even know the show had mixed reviews because I avoid any articles about the show, because I don't want the story to get spoiled for me.

That's why when I watched it, I honestly thought this was going to be more of a sitcom-*ish* show about two women comically fighting over being the main host of the morning show. I had no idea it was even going to be this serious, complex and intriguing. And wow, what a welcome surprise. Fantastic show!

P.S. I was also hoping that with all the positive Apple product placement throughout the show, we would eventually see that Fred was actually using an Android/Samsung smartphone the entire time! Monster!!!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> When Alex and Chip were passing on the escalators and she clearly was trying to avoid eye contact, I expected Chip to say "Et tu, Brute?"
> 
> Loved the final scene and how they locked Fred out and just went off. However, I felt kind of bad for the new producer guy. Obviously from the main characters' perspective, everything he did was cringeworthy. But if you look at the impossible situation he just fell into, he was just doing the best he could and saying what anyone in his position would say. It will be interesting to see what happens with his character when the new season starts.


It would not surprise me too much if the new producer is gone. He was installed by Fred. And Fred should be gone.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> It would not surprise me too much if the new producer is gone. He was installed by Fred. And Fred should be gone.


I hope Fred isn't gone right away. I want to see the power struggle between him and Corey. Fred's a pretty powerful guy and I don't think he'll go quietly. Eventually he will be gone, but I don't think it will be at the start S2 unless they do a time jump.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I hope Fred isn't gone right away. I want to see the power struggle between him and Corey. Fred's a pretty powerful guy and I don't think he'll go quietly. Eventually he will be gone, but I don't think it will be at the start S2 unless they do a time jump.


Agreed. I'd like to see the chaos that ensues immediately after the end of S01E10. I hope it literally picks up the exact second S1 ended. If they do a time jump and we don't get to see the immediate ramifications, I will be disappointed.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I too wonder where it picks up. Right there after going to color bars ? Or months later?


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> That scene between Claire and Yanko was very odd. Just moments after Claire told Hannah how much she loved Yanko and defended her relationship, she then turns around and breaks up with Yanko? That seemed to come out of nowhere.


I just wanted to double-back on this because I think episode 10 cleared this up nicely and it made complete sense to me. Hannah was trying to protect Claire. However, from Hannah's perspective, every older guy at work was like Mitch, and having a relationship with Yanko must've meant that Yanko too was like Mitch and only trying to use Claire. Hannah didn't know that their relationship was nothing like what Mitch did to Hannah. So at first Claire was defiant in their meeting at the bar and stormed out and was highly upset with Hannah. But likely, she thought about it, and thought that Hannah was older, wiser, her friend, and actually _was_ trying to actually protect her, so Claire probably thought it over and thought it would be best to break things off with Yanko because she could see how much affected Hannah. So Claire did break it off with Yanko in front of the restaurant, opting to listen to Hannah. The next morning, we saw in Episode 10 that Claire was apologetic to Hannah, and wanted to bring her coffee, etc., because she realized Hannah was probably right.

But then fast forward to Claire finding Hannah's body, and again, that was a game changer. Hannah was tormented by her experience with Mitch, but it was nothing like that for Claire. So that's why when Claire made it back to the studio, she didn't distance herself from Yanko, but instead hugged him.

Again, workplace relationships are really complicated, so I thought the show did a great job by not making every relationship and awful predatory one, because that's not how things always are.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I've started watching the series now. Obviously I can't read the thread until I'm done, but I imagine I will post some episode-by-episode thoughts as I go.

On the first episode:

If this is representative of the first three that Apple released to critics at launch, I understand why the reviews were very mixed. On the one hand, there's a lot here: stars (who are also very good actors), production value, currency, obvious (to me) good intentions. On the other, this is high melodrama, with every emotion pitched at 100% and not a single relatable character on screen. On the latter point, the show seems to be asking us to take on faith that at least some of these people will become, if not likable, then not aggressively off-putting as the show goes on.

I thought that was a real problem with Carrell's character. Our first introduction to him, as he rails about how unfair it is that he doesn't get to be a man (i.e. have affairs because that's what men do obviously, so it's supposed to be OK), dropping F-bombs and insisting he did nothing wrong as he smashes his TV, painted him as a capital-A Ash-hole. This was the guy America loved? This guy? He's the one who was a great friend and partner to Alex (who, we are shown, isn't exactly a peach herself). They're going to have to do some work to rehabilitate him as far as I am concerned, although maybe that's not actually their objective with the character. We'll see.

Overall a bit of a rough start, but it's so competently rough that I would have planned to stay with it even if I didn't know that most people came away really liking this first season. On to episode two.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

cmontyburns said:


> the show seems to be asking us to take on faith that at least some of these people will become, if not likable, then not aggressively off-putting as the show goes on.


They are and I think you will. I'll remain silent on the other points until you catch up and read the entire thread.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

photoshopgrl said:


> They are and I think you will. I'll remain silent on the other points until you catch up and read the entire thread.


That post is like a long review of a book after only chapter one. 

I can't even imagine formulating that much of an opinion in something after just the pilot. I'm not even going to say "it gets better" because that implies that the first episode was poorly done. It wasn't. I think the entire first season is utterly fantastic on so many levels, and should be judged by the entire story they presented not a parsing of only the pilot, but that's just me.

Heck, he hasn't even seen the cool "dots" intro yet.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

inaka said:


> That post is like a long review of a book after only chapter one.
> 
> I can't even imagine formulating that much of an opinion in something after just the pilot. I'm not even going to say "it gets better" because that implies that the first episode was poorly done. It wasn't. I think the entire first season is utterly fantastic on so many levels, and should be judged by the entire story they presented not a parsing of only the pilot, but that's just me.
> 
> Heck, he hasn't even seen the cool "dots" intro yet.


That's why I said I'd wait for them to catch up!


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

inaka said:


> That post is like a long review of a book after only chapter one.
> 
> I can't even imagine formulating that much of an opinion in something after just the pilot. I'm not even going to say "it gets better" because that implies that the first episode was poorly done. It wasn't.


Saying the characters made a poor first impression and everyone yelled a lot is some kind of huge judgment about the whole series? It's called a _first _impression for a reason.

And even something that starts off great can get better! Don't worry; I'm going to watch the whole thing and I am looking forward to it. Hopefully having opinions about subsequent episodes will be less unfathomable to you.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Thoughts on episode two -- buckle up! 

It took me a few tries to get through this episode. Some that was due to time slicing, but some was because the episode just wasn't pulling me through it. About halfway in, though, it struck me that I'd be having a better time with a change in perspective. The slick presentation, star power, and of-the-moment subject matter have had me wanting the show to be a high-minded exploration of serious topics like patriarchy. Maybe the series will turn into that, but so far what it actually has been is a soapy potboiler wearing more serious clothes. Once I flipped that mental switch and engaged with the show more superficially, I started having a great deal more fun with the episode. 

Suddenly Crudup's scheming Machiavelli stopped (or maybe started!) needing a mustache to twist. The constant knife's-edge emotions made sense. Ridiculous developments like Alex's surprise announcement in her speech became fun: a boss, "your move" power play. When I decided to stop taking it seriously, it became entertaining. I ended the episode looking forward to what happens next.

One specific thing I liked, and one I disliked. On the former, I really liked the scene between Bradley and Alex at the awards dinner in the restroom. Notwithstanding my comments above, this scene was played fairly straight, and very well. The two of them don't like each other, for reasons real and imagined, and that played out. At the same time, it was obvious to both of them, and the actresses played it this way, that they were victims not of each other but of something larger. The power they had to do anything about it differed, although the results may not. That was really good.

On the latter, I'm still puzzled by the treatment of Mitch so far. Once again, most of his scenes were of him complaining about unfair it was that he can't sleep around without consequence, as though not raping anyone makes him virtuous (or at worst, deserving of his entitlement). It's a strangely unsympathetic portrayal of someone we continue to be told has been America's beloved TV husband and dad for the last fifteen years. I get that what people project to the camera doesn't have to be the person they are behind the scenes, but he's so loathsome so far that I the shock and dismay we see around the show at his ouster don't jibe. I'm interested to see what they do with him from here, but so far it's been hard not to fast-forward through Carrell's scenes.

On to episode three.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Brief episode three thoughts:

I'm glad the next episode will get to the first new TMS because I'm finding myself a bit impatient for the show (both the fictional one and the real one) to get to whatever it is going to be about. Granted it could hardly be moving faster given the premise, but still.

Alex's power play in front of the network brass was a very for-TV scene but I still enjoyed her riding roughshod over them. 

Interesting that they chose to use Barney's for the late-night shopping trip since Barney's is going out of business and that store has liquidation signs all over it in real life.

Up until halfway through this episode, I thought Alex's husband was actually her ex and that they were just on really friendly terms. I'm still not sure he isn't.

Speaking of things I'm still not sure about: Mitch. So we get him continuing his woe-is-me, I'm-the-victim-here garment rending, this time paired up with Martin Short, playing against type as a real scumbag. I have no idea what the point of that scene was. Was Short's character so bad that Mitch, seeing what wrong looks like to him, realize that he could be wrong too in the eyes of other people? Or did it just convince him further that he's in the right because, as he says to Short, "I'm not you." No clue what they are doing with him.

Feels like we'll see Marcia Gay Harden as the society reporter again. She's an awfully big-name guest for a throwaway two-line part. (Though we did briefly get Mindy Kaling earlier, so who knows. Besides all of you who've watched the whole series already!)


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

cmontyburns said:


> Speaking of things I'm still not sure about: Mitch. So we get him continuing his woe-is-me, I'm-the-victim-here garment rending, this time paired up with Martin Short, playing against type as a real scumbag. I have no idea what the point of that scene was. Was Short's character so bad that Mitch, seeing what wrong looks like to him, realize that he could be wrong too in the eyes of other people? Or did it just convince him further that he's in the right because, as he says to Short, "I'm not you." No clue what they are doing with him.


It's tough reading your summaries for episodes that were so early in the story, and I don't want to spoil anything for you (even though this is a spoiler thread). I will just say that even when that episode aired, that scene with Martin Short was a really powerful one to me. It showed how oblivious Mitch was to the actions he was undergoing. I didn't know the extend of Mitch's actions at the time, so at that moment, maybe he was right, maybe he wasn't. At that stage the viewers didn't know. He might have been a bit over the line, but in his eyes he wasn't a true sexual predator like Martin Short's character. In that moment, it could be similar to a conversation between Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein as old pals. Mitch playing the role of Louie CK, insisting to himself that he had consent from all of his victims and that they were willing participants. Whether that's true to not, I'll just say, remains to be seen as to not spoil anything.

That's why the scene was so powerful. He doesn't get it. He still doesn't get it. Does he ever "get it"? Well, you'll just have to finish the season to find out.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

inaka said:


> It's tough reading your summaries for episodes that were so early in the story, and I don't want to spoil anything for you (even though this is a spoiler thread). I will just say that even when that episode aired, that scene with Martin Short was a really powerful one to me. It showed how oblivious Mitch was to the actions he was undergoing. I didn't know the extend of Mitch's actions at the time, so at that moment, maybe he was right, maybe he wasn't. At that stage the viewers didn't know. He might have been a bit over the line, but in his eyes he wasn't a true sexual predator like Martin Short's character. In that moment, it could be similar to a conversation between Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein as old pals. Mitch playing the role of Louie CK, insisting to himself that he had consent from all of his victims and that they were willing participants. Whether that's true to not, I'll just say, remains to be seen as to not spoil anything.
> 
> That's why the scene was so powerful. He doesn't get it. He still doesn't get it. Does he ever "get it"? Well, you'll just have to finish the season to find out.


Yeah, I'm sure it's weird watching me puzzle this out when you know the answers. Part of the reason this has been a bit frustrating for me is that I haven't been able to figure out whether this was intentional on the show's part -- like, did they know that this plays like I think it plays? Or did they think they were showing something that just didn't come across? I was listening to a podcast recently where Quentin Tarantino was talking about being confused when watching a movie. He said he's totally cool with it as long as he thinks he's in good hands. I haven't been sure yet if I'm in good hands.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Episode four:

Now we're talking.

Despite what I said back in episode two about relaxing into the melodrama of it all, I've found that hard to do because the series just hasn't let anything breathe so far. Heading into this episode, I knew the first new week of TMS was going to be bumpy, because of course, but I thought it would be more of the "two F's Jackson" variety. Nope, five minutes in and we've thrown an abortion controversy on top of the fire. Good heavens.

Fortunately they didn't (or haven't so far) linger on that. It even set up a brief moment of the sort I've been waiting for, which was Kelly Clarkson's appearance. Not that I'm a big Kelly fan or anything, but it was a brief moment of fun -- and of the characters having fun -- that just let the balloon relax for a couple of minutes. (I generally find the morning shows pretty insipid, but in that moment I reflected that I sort of got why people like them.)

Then on to the accuser interview. This was one that was obviously going to go sideways vs. plan -- it was plenty telegraphed and even if it hadn't been, we would have expected it -- but the drama here was the sort I really enjoy. For starters, Bradley was right in doing what she did. I expect that over time, the show will present her and Alex coming to a happy medium about being uncontroversial and being reporters -- but for where Bradley is right now, of course she was going to go for the story despite being told not to. (And again, she was right to do it.) And second, though we were back at issue full boil here, this didn't scan as just people rending garments theatrically about the seriousness of it all. This was _plot_. This was Alex's Frankenstein terrorizing this village. This was Billy Crudup's conniving sneer. This was the women on staff becoming more inspired as we looked at them and some of the men becoming more scared. And this was Alex siding with the men!

That last part fascinates me. The series hasn't made a secret so far that Alex isn't an innocent, isn't a victim in all ways (she is in some), isn't necessarily the person you root for even though she's played by Jennifer Aniston. She's shallow and egotistical and entitled and defensive and blind to a lot of that. When Bradley confronted her at the end and demanded, "Did you know?", were any of us on Alex's side? So well played by both of them but especially Witherspoon there. I really like her in this role.

Cheeky reprise of Kelly Clarkson over the end credits. This episode really found its footing for me as it went on.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

cmontyburns said:


> Yeah, I'm sure it's weird watching me puzzle this out when you know the answers. Part of the reason this has been a bit frustrating for me is that I haven't been able to figure out whether this was intentional on the show's part -- like, did they know that this plays like I think it plays? Or did they think they were showing something that just didn't come across? I was listening to a podcast recently where Quentin Tarantino was talking about being confused when watching a movie. He said he's totally cool with it as long as he thinks he's in good hands. I haven't been sure yet if I'm in good hands.


This series is pure Allstate. 
In other words, you're in good hands.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Can't wait to read the rest of cmonty's recaps. This is fun.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Episode five.

Sorry to disappoint you, @DevdogAZ, but only a couple of minor observations here. I want to watch another episode before getting back to the corpus of the show. Suffice to say I am still wrestling with it five episodes in.

I was amused that even Apple can't help but show its phones making sounds they don't really make in actual use. For example, when Bradley called her dad back, her iPhone made a little "boop" noise when she tapped the button to open the call.

So first I thought Alex was divorced, then I decided she must be married, and now it turns out she's separated? Whaaa? Next I'm going to find out she's separated from someone other than her father's daughter, who has been hanging out in her apartment the entire series.

Really enjoyed the duet between Cory and Alex at the party. Very clever of him, and a fun scene. At first I didn't buy that Alex would go running off to Mitch after, but I think it scans. The high-wire act she's had to walk during the party is entirely due to the reason behind Mitch's absence. None of that stress existed before, when Mitch was around. She certainly wasn't singing passive-aggressive duets with the news chief in front of high-society guests and her colleagues before all this. So why not retreat to a moment when Mitch could be there, like old times, even if it's artifice. (I do wish the car kiss hadn't happened though. Too obvious.)

I knew we'd be seeing Marcia Gay Harden again. I think Alex approached her conversation at the party all wrong. Her tactics were way too obvious and fortunately the episode didn't play the reporter for an idiot.

Everybody dressed to the nines at the party and of course sad-sack Chip shows up in his sweater. Ha!

Hollywood must be a weird place to work. The guy who plays the bartender gets what is probably the biggest role of his life, and his 60 seconds of screen time involve smiling behind a bar a couple of times and humping Reese Witherspoon against a wall.

At least Mitch found some new people to scream at this episode.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

It has been a while since I've had concentrated time for TV watching so I didn't get around to episode 6 until last night.

I mentioned last post that I wanted another episode before zooming out on the show as a whole. Now that it has entered the back half, it seemed like the show really had to pick a lane for what it was about. Polemic? Soap opera? Palace intrigue melodrama? Drama about morning television? I mean, it can be all those things, but thus far it hasn't picked one as a through-line on top of which the other stuff can ride. It lurches from one to another episode-by-episode, scene-by-scene. 

I'm not sure this episode (the one with the wildfires, for anyone who finished watching a while ago) really settled that, but at least it had a center in the wildfire story. As such, it was probably the most successful episode of the run so far, and I enjoyed it a fair bit. The conflict between Alex and Bradley about the stories they should air was melodrama about their interpersonal dynamic, but also felt like a real debate that would be had in this circumstance. Alex breaking down on camera, and the ensuing reason it gave for a tentative rapprochement between her and Bradley, felt like a pretty organic response to what they were witnessing, and not just plot mechanics. It all felt a lot less superficial. I hope to see more of that.

I wonder if her breakdown will presage a more likable Alex. Not that she or Aniston have to be likable just because, but I can't get over how sour this character is and yet how she's said to be regarded as America's mom. (Same problem I've had with Angry Mitch.) I'm also puzzled at why a divorce is assumed to be bad for the show's ratings or public opinion. She's already separated; people wouldn't assume the writing is on the wall? Although maybe the public of this show, like me, still don't really understand the relationship between those two. I get why he was mad at her leaving him holding the bag at her party, of course, but why was he there to be in that position in the first place? In just a few episodes we've gone from them snuggling on the couch over drinks and saying they love each other to him demanding a divorce. This relationship has not been well-portrayed.

I wonder what Chip has on Fred.

Brutal evisceration by Cory of his colleague in that pilot screening.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> Episode five.
> ... Next I'm going to find out she's separated from someone other than *her father's daughter*, who has been hanging out in her apartment the entire series.


Yeah, about that, I think you meant to say "her daughter's father" ...


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

We just finished the first season last night. Is everyone caught up so we can talk about it openly now?


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

brianp6621 said:


> We just finished the first season last night. Is everyone caught up so we can talk about it openly now?


**paging @cmontyburns, cmontyburns to the white courtesy phone... ** 

It should be fine being that this is a spoilers thread. Have at it!


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

Well I don't know that I actually have much to contribute but I will just say wow. I honestly hadn't even heard of the show and my wife was told by a friend she should watch it (my wife is pretty far up the ladder so we have many discussions revolving around male/female issues and discrepancies in the workplace/workforce).

We started watching it together and I love it. A really excellent first season, capped off by an amazing finale. Best new TV I've seen in a long time. It is really well written with great characters

Mitch is a fascinating combination of brilliant, charismatic, creepy, and clueless all at the same time
Cory is an engima to watch. Is he a jerk, does he just want to watch the world burn, is he actually a caring individual somewhat hiding behind a brusk mask?
Alex is a person who has lost her way in success and has sacrificed some of her beliefs and is just overwhelmed
Bradley to me is probably the least complex being mostly a person really driven by good solid beliefs or pure lack of social grace to just do what is right


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

brianp6621 said:


> Well I don't know that I actually have much to contribute but I will just say wow. I honestly hadn't even heard of the show and my wife was told by a friend she should watch it (my wife is pretty far up the ladder so we have many discussions revolving around male/female issues and discrepancies in the workplace/workforce).
> 
> We started watching it together and I love it. A really excellent first season, capped off by an amazing finale. Best new TV I've seen in a long time. It is really well written with great characters
> 
> ...


I agree with your assessment. I think Mitch isn't a completely bad person. I think he's done some really gross things but not out of malice for these women, like the creeper he was talking to played by Martin Short. He's just oblivious to the fact that he wasn't getting tail due to his grand looks and charm. Cory is my favorite just for the reasons you mention. I just can't figure him out but I like watching him work. Also like the friendship with him and Bradley.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I saw that @inaka tagged me a few posts back. I skipped everything in between that and this (and I've not read anything else in the thread, either, except direct responses to my posts). Spoiler away.

I'm not caught up. The show is interesting and I'm rooting for it, but it's not pulling me along enough to have powered through the remaining episodes. I did watch episode 7 which I haven't written up, but my short summary is that I thought it was more bad than good. (I think this was the one where Bradley agreed to interview Mitch.). I've caught sight of the title of the final episode and so it's obvious now (sort of was anyway) what that refers to.

I really should finish up so I'll try to do that by the end of the weekend.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

This and Servant were the two shows that I was excited to see on the day it dropped.


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

I just watched the final episode and WOW, they really pulled it together.
I was one of many who thought the first few episodes were lackluster. I watched the first episode not long after launch, gave the next couple episodes a chance once they came out but just didn't find the show compelling enough.
If it weren't for the quarantine I probably wouldn't have continued, but I'm glad I did! It really picked up steam about half way through the season. 
As Inaka mentioned, Gugu Mbutha-Raw is phenomenal. I have seen her in a few things before (Black Mirror, Beyond the Lights, Concussion) and liked her but I thought my opinion of her acting was biased just because she is so attractive. Her role in this show proves she has acting chops too!


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

UTV2TiVo said:


> As Inaka mentioned, Gugu Mbutha-Raw is phenomenal. I have seen her in a few things before (*Black Mirror*, Beyond the Lights, Concussion) and liked her but I thought my opinion of her acting was biased just because she is so attractive. Her role in this show proves she has acting chops too!


I just this very second realized she was the girl from San Junipero!


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I'm baa-ack. 

I decided to pause watching the show because I found that fighting with it so much was making even the parts I liked feel like a chore. I didn't mean to put it down for months, but I guess that's a sign of how much I mostly wasn't enjoying it, despite some strong entries on the other side of the ledger. Anyway, I decided to buck up and finish it this weekend. I've got the last episode yet to watch tonight, but I wanted to post briefly before that.

Unfortunately, the first episode I came back to was episode eight, the flashback to Mitch's fiftieth birthday. I really disliked it. It was boring and obvious and seemed to exist only to make stuff that wasn't even subtext in the show, but actual text, into EVEN BIGGER TEXT. And it showed just about everyone in their absolutely worst light. I had to grit my teeth to get through it.

The penultimate episode was much better. This one returned to the palace intrigue nature of the series and started to bring everyone's machinations into a tighter knot. This has always been the strongest element of the show, and an episode that focuses primarily on plot was bound to be pretty good. It still couldn't help but digress into too much sneering Mitch, and Alex appears to be irredeemable as a character (but I'll wait and see what episode ten brings). And the show's exploration of sexual dynamics in the workplace as regards the principals is less a study than excavation with a jackhammer -- loud, obvious, and unpleasant. That's a shame because it's also doing some much more subtle and effective work in that area with the relationship between Yanko and Claire. That is real, and affecting, and sad, and it's a strange contrast with how bombastic the show is with the theme overall. I'm rooting for them.

Anyway, for all that, I liked the momentum of the episode and how it sets up episode ten, which I am looking forward to. At least I get to see what the hubbub is about. Here we go...


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Loved this show! Emmy awards all around, please!


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

New season two trailer.

I really struggled with season one, ultimately deeming it an interesting failure. I was looking forward to season two to see if they had evened out the rough spots, but based on this trailer I fear that it will require even more of an effort than season one did. Aside from Billy Crudup, does any of this look remotely _fun_? So much talent on display here and it all seems so miserable.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Anyone watch S2E01 yet? I was thoroughly lost. They start off with the immediate (?) after effects of what happened at the end of S1, then a long drone shot of an empty NYC (I assume that's the Covid lockdown timeframe) then they do a "3 months earlier" jump. And I was confused where the "3 months earlier" time frame was relative to the opening of the episode (it appeared to be some time later but not at all clear as to exactly when). Most of the episode (I think we are still "3 months earlier") centered around the New Year's Eve and events leading up to it. I just don't understand why they had to make it confusing.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

wprager said:


> Anyone watch S2E01 yet? I was thoroughly lost. They start off with the immediate (?) after effects of what happened at the end of S1, then a long drone shot of an empty NYC (I assume that's the Covid lockdown timeframe) then they do a "3 months earlier" jump. And I was confused where the "3 months earlier" time frame was relative to the opening of the episode (it appeared to be some time later but not at all clear as to exactly when). Most of the episode (I think we are still "3 months earlier") centered around the New Year's Eve and events leading up to it. I just don't understand why they had to make it confusing.


Most of the episode was 3 months before the Covid lockdown.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

wprager said:


> Anyone watch S2E01 yet? I was thoroughly lost. They start off with the immediate (?) after effects of what happened at the end of S1, then a long drone shot of an empty NYC (I assume that's the Covid lockdown timeframe) then they do a "3 months earlier" jump. And I was confused where the "3 months earlier" time frame was relative to the opening of the episode (it appeared to be some time later but not at all clear as to exactly when). Most of the episode (I think we are still "3 months earlier") centered around the New Year's Eve and events leading up to it. I just don't understand why they had to make it confusing.


If you watch the extra they say they had to rewrite some of the season to include Covid. Unlike most shows they aren't going to pretend it didn't happen.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

I loved the perfectly timed "AH-CHOO!" at the end of the episode!


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

wprager said:


> Anyone watch S2E01 yet? I was thoroughly lost. They start off with the immediate (?) after effects of what happened at the end of S1, then a long drone shot of an empty NYC (I assume that's the Covid lockdown timeframe) then they do a "3 months earlier" jump. And I was confused where the "3 months earlier" time frame was relative to the opening of the episode (it appeared to be some time later but not at all clear as to exactly when). Most of the episode (I think we are still "3 months earlier") centered around the New Year's Eve and events leading up to it. I just don't understand why they had to make it confusing.


I agree 100%. The timeline was seriously messed up.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Poor Bradley is still incredibly naive, to think that *she* had any sway in getting Cory not just un-fired but promoted to CEO.

Who leaked the dollar figure of what's-his-name's settlement to Hanna's family? My money's on Mitch.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

This season hasn't been great but the latest episode was very good. Fantastic writing, finally.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

And then the finale was a hot mess, and not at all in a good way.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

wprager said:


> And then the finale was a hot mess, and not at all in a good way.


It was but there were still a couple of moments for me. The confession from Cory. We all knew it but I didn't really think he'd ever say it.

Chip tells Alex he has Covid when he doesn't. He never even got the test. Whoa. He's risking death to be there with her? And ignores his fiancé/girlfriend (forget which she is) when she calls? Yikes.

Alex puking one minute and being camera ready the next with just some mild sweating didn't feel real enough. She needed to look much worse to be believable for me.

The entire thing with Bradley and her brother, can't find a way to care about that entire storyline but I guess it did give Cory the reason to help her and share his feelings.

The pregnant girl getting possibly exposed to Covid wasn't cool. And I can't find a way to care about Daniel but I do feel for Mia and understand why she wants him to stay.

I can't say the season blew me away but I'll tune in for Season 3, I'm sure. Unless it gets canceled.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Does this bother anyone else? Being that the Boring Co came first, don't you think they could have changed TMS logo just a bit to not make look like an exact copy?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

photoshopgrl said:


> It was but there were still a couple of moments for me. The confession from Cory. We all knew it but I didn't really think he'd ever say it.
> 
> Chip tells Alex he has Covid when he doesn't. He never even got the test. Whoa. He's risking death to be there with her? And ignores his fiancé/girlfriend (forget which she is) when she calls? Yikes.
> 
> ...


Yea the Bradley brother thing bothered me a lot especially when he walked out of rehab let alone walked into her place of work and embarassed her. I would have dumped his A** at that point.
Her having to walk into the drugs den of homeless people in the midst of the unfolding pandemic was just plain nuts. I was surprised that virtually nobody started wearing masks at the end.
I mean NYC was a pretty big epicenter early on.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

zalusky said:


> Her having to walk into the drugs den of homeless people in the midst of the unfolding pandemic was just plain nuts. I was surprised that virtually nobody started wearing masks at the end.
> I mean NYC was a pretty big epicenter early on.


yeah, that was clearly nuts. They were already setting up remote studios and such and Cory had that huge plexi shield on his desk. But no masks?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Cory professing his love for Bradley reminded me of the "just a girl standing in front of a boy" speech from Notting Hill ... except Julia Roberts somehow made that excruciatingly cringy line believable. Cory's delivery was more like Tom Cruise jumping on top of Oprah's couch.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Hank said:


> Does this bother anyone else? Being that the Boring Co came first, don't you think they could have changed TMS logo just a bit to not make look like an exact copy?


Whoa! Can't unsee that.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

wprager said:


> Cory professing his love for Bradley reminded me of the "just a girl standing in front of a boy" speech from Notting Hill ... except Julia Roberts somehow made that excruciatingly cringy line believable. Cory's delivery was more like Tom Cruise jumping on top of Oprah's couch.


One wonders how Cory will feel when he finds she bats for the other team. She only seemed to snuggle up to him when her lady friend suggested it.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

zalusky said:


> One wonders how Cory will feel when he finds she bats for the other team. She only seemed to snuggle up to him when her lady friend suggested it.


Cory already knows. It appears that he was the one that leaked the story to the press about Bradley and Laura.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

TriBruin said:


> Cory already knows. It appears that he was the one that leaked the story to the press about Bradley and Laura.


True love


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

TriBruin said:


> Cory already knows. It appears that he was the one that leaked the story to the press about Bradley and Laura.


That's what I thought he was going to confess in that scene


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I thought the Season 2 finale was terrible. The writing was very weak overall, and the episode just didn't have any flow.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

wprager said:


> Cory professing his love for Bradley reminded me of the "just a girl standing in front of a boy" speech from Notting Hill ... except Julia Roberts somehow made that excruciatingly cringy line believable. Cory's delivery was more like Tom Cruise jumping on top of Oprah's couch.


I dunno. Maybe I'm biased because I adore Billy Crudup so much but I found it very true to the character. And sweet. 
(oh no, I'm getting soft in my old age! )



jr461 said:


> That's what I thought he was going to confess in that scene


I do think that was his initial intention and then swerved on it because he didn't want to make her angry.


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

Lots of criticism of season 2, but imho this show has the best acting and writing going right now. Look forward to s3


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I thought the writing was very uneven. The finale was awful. The episode before that (or maybe two) it was brilliant. That Chip voice mail rant was inspired writing (and acting). But there were many other episodes where I was quite disappointed.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

The best thing about this season was Valeria Golino. Crossing my fingers she gets added to the principal cast next season, if there is one. (Apple's silence is telling)

Kinda lukewarm about everything else. Carell's exit and Marguilies entrance was a zero sum game. Couldn't care less about Bradley's drama this season. And Alex's cascading mania wasn't fun. Kept wanting her to go back to Maine and finish the book.



photoshopgrl said:


> I dunno. Maybe I'm biased because I adore Billy Crudup so much but I found it very true to the character. And sweet.


Crudup's character Cory Ellison was my favorite until that moment. Seems slightly unbelievable to me. (not the in-love with Bradley angle, but the confession seems boneheaded for Cory)


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Saturn_V said:


> Crudup's character Cory Ellison was my favorite until that moment. Seems slightly unbelievable to me. (not the in-love with Bradley angle, but the confession seems *boneheaded* for Cory)


and cringe worthy...


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

gossamer88 said:


> and cringe worthy...


I thought it was very in character. He's always been the kind of guy that just acts on impulse.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I put this series off because morning news shows bore me. Also, I thought it would be similar to the movie Bombshell in which I have zero interest. I like Witherspoon’s work (except during what I call her “Doris Day period”) but not so much Aniston. 

So I gave it a shot and binged both seasons over the weekend. S2 showed the effects of COVID beyond the script itself. They did a pretty good job filming through it. 

All in all, TMS is another quality Apple TV+ offering.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Beryl said:


> All in all, TMS is another quality Apple TV+ offering.


It's not perfect, but I'd still watch. The absence of a S3 renewal announcement is a little troubling.


----------



## Haps (Nov 30, 2001)

Finished Season 2 last night.

Season one was fantastic. 9.5/10. Season 2 on the other hand I did not find as good 5/10.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Finished this up. I thought the first few episodes was kind of a snooze fest filled with characters I care little about and not enjoying watching. I thought it got really good in the middle when they told the Mitch story and his demise. Then it got back into being about this bunch of people who I care little about. The finale was horrible. And I felt they really had to dig deep to find something for the Bradley character this season, since the crux of the story was about Alex, Mitch and Covid. First they put her in this love triangle between Juliana Margolies character and Billy Cruddup's character and her self centered thoughts about coming out. Then they throw her brother's issues on her. It just all felt disjointed from the main story. This is one of those series where it's got good acting and big name actors, and a mediocre at best story line and writing. I just wonder if either the actors don't want to do another season or it's just too expensive to keep all these A list (or B list) actors. I'll watch if they do a third, but if they don't, I won't miss it.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Renewed for S3, new show runner.
The Morning Show Renewed For Season 3 at Apple TV+ With New Showrunner


> Charlotte Stroud (_Homeland_, _Fosse/Verdon_) will take over as showrunner/executive producer, replacing Kerry Ehrin in the role. Ehrin, who is developing series with the streaming service under a previously announced overall deal, will continue as a consultant with the show


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

wprager said:


> Renewed for S3, new show runner.
> The Morning Show Renewed For Season 3 at Apple TV+ With New Showrunner


Nice! I didn't love season 2 as much but I still enjoyed it quite a bit and would have been sad had they not renewed it.


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

I hope the Anniston character doesn't huff all the way through season 3 like she did in season two. Seems like every second sentence of dialogue ended in a "huff."


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jay_man2 said:


> I hope the Anniston character doesn't huff all the way through season 3 like she did in season two. Seems like every second sentence of dialogue ended in a "huff."


I've got bad news for you. She got Covid, so expect some huffing and puffing.


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

wprager said:


> I've got bad news for you. She got Covid, so expect some huffing and puffing.


It's hard to describe the sound she made, but started annoying me. She just seemed so angsty the whole season, and that harumph or huff started getting on my last nerve.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

jay_man2 said:


> I hope the Anniston character doesn't huff all the way through season 3 like she did in season two. Seems like every second sentence of dialogue ended in a "huff."


Go back and watch Friends. She was doing it then too.


----------

