# The Newsroom



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

I don't see a thread here on this show, so I have no idea if anyone here is watching it. It is one of 2 or 3 shows that are "appointment television" for me.

Writer/creator Aaron Sorkin gets a lot of flack in the reviews,and is rightfully accused of using a lot of tropes. The show is also interpreted by those leaning right as leaning left, maybe not as rightfully. And I can't disagree that yes, no one talks like this in real life, and yes, the love triangles are pretty ridiculous and boring.

But if you get past all of that, most of which is still pretty clever and entertaining, to the meat of the story, I honestly can't find anything better than this show. Last night's "Red Team III" episode completely knocked it out of the park. I don't want to sound too hyperbolic, but honestly I have not experienced television written this well since, well since Aaron Sorking stopped writing scripts for _The West Wing _a decade ago. And that includes every single episode of five seasons of _The Good Wife,_ which I still say is the best-written series we have ever been blessed with.

If you have seen _The Social Network_, or _Sports Night _(reruns of which are about to begin), or even the ill-fated _Studio 60_, you probably have an idea how good this guy is. He may have some idiosyncracies that disturb others (and most who complain about him are writers that are jealous that they don't have anywhere near that amount of talent), but this guy can write circles around anybody. the guy is a national treasure.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I got introduced to his "style" on "Sports Night".

Yeah, the characters talk in a way we WISHED we did (no "uh" or "ummm" or anything like that) but episodes like last night are the reason I'm glued to the set. I did NOT see the "twist" coming, and I usually know at least that there's a setup coming even if I don't call the twist correctly.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

I couldn't agree more, TomCat. Sorkin is a national treasure. Btw, A Few Good Men is totally worth re-watching. I may do that next weekend when I think Newsroom takes a week off for the holiday.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I really like the Blackout II episode from last season which IMHO showed how a presidential debate should really be run.


----------



## Jacob Braun (Oct 6, 2011)

I love everything Sloan says. She is quite possibly my favorite character.


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

I've watched it during free HBO previews and would watch it year-round if I could. Typical, brilliant Sorkin.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Having dabbled in TV news, I find the show fascinating. The bouncing around in the timeline can be a little disorienting but I think that adds to the charm.

It is also interesting to see a revisit of some of the news stories of recent history.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

I haven't been keeping up with the show as much when it debut, but the news is not the center point of the story, because we already know what happens and the outcome. We see the characters and their rapid fire dialogue. It's a good summer show. A lot of drama at times, but it is still good. I'm like 4 back. I need to catch up soon.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

djlong said:


> Yeah, the characters talk in a way we WISHED we did (no "uh" or "ummm" or anything like that) but episodes like last night are the reason I'm glued to the set.


The benefit of being a scripted show instead of real life is the ability to script perfection. Even with imperfect characters.



djlong said:


> I did NOT see the "twist" coming, and I usually know at least that there's a setup coming even if I don't call the twist correctly.





Spoiler



There was a slight tip of the hand early in the episode when the lawyers asked is Will's source was the same as Charlie's. It was dismissed as "it didn't matter". But one by one the sources fell away. Until none were left.



The discussion of the clocks on the footbsll game was a good scene. Intelligent details and a good setup for later.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Newsroom is a must watch here. Never saw the sports night show. Not a sports fan, so it never interested me.



Spoiler



I find it ironic the timing of the latest episodes given the recent news these days with the chemical attacks


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Don't need to be a sports fan to enjoy Sports Night, though I can't say from experience myself as I am a fan. 

Sometimes with The Newsroom, there's just too much dialogue!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> Don't need to be a sports fan to enjoy Sports Night, though I can't say from experience myself as I am a fan.
> 
> Sometimes with The Newsroom, there's just too much dialogue!


Sometimes I turn on CC just to try to keep up.

BTW, don't know about anyone else but I hate how they changed the opening theme music.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, CC can help! But last night (I'm on catch-up) there was a long scene re the triangle or quadrangle of involvement and I was in bed falling asleep, and too lazy to turn it on.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

I love newsroom. This season has been great so far.

Sent from the other side of the Milky Way with my S4.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Always CC, hate the new colder, corporatized theme, loved the old, stirring theme.

They did screw up one bit of continuity. Early on just after the CIA guy's interview Mac tells Evil Temp Prod guy (whatever his name is) "I want to look at the raw footage!" It is never referred to again. Then much later after the scandal breaks she says the exact same thing and immediately finds the edit. Oops.

Did Olivia Munn walk into the role of a lifetime or what?? She's going to become for Sorkin what Rebecca Pidgeon was for Mamet (minus the sex, probably).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I assumed that she looked and didn't see anything wrong ... until she realized that there was a video hint that the footage was edited.

I'm curious as to why it was not an audio only edit. It was not like one could read his lips. But of course, there had to be some way of proving the bad guy was bad.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

To anybody oriented to video editing as Mac is, that chop edit in its raw form was the equivalent of an earthquake, massively obvious. And of course there would have been a shift seen on the guy, nobody holds perfectly still. It's one of those things they figured they could get away with given their laymen audience, not so vid pros. Not even close.

You'd never get away with an audio edit-only either. The lip flap wouldn't match. Pros can spot that a mile away.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I was hoping the audio of the game was going to be the tattle tale ... that is probably where I would have picked up the edit. But then I am more of an audiophile than a videophile.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

JBv said:


> I love everything Sloan says. She is quite possibly my favorite character.


I was prepared not to like her, but only because I was a loyal G4 watcher before it was G4, back when it was a true tech network. Olivia was seemingly brought in as attractive "talent" because when men saw her they stopped changing the channel no matter what might have been coming out of her mouth, but to regular viewers she seemed to be more of an interloper.

I think it might have been her first actual non-local TV job. And they gave her ditsy things to say, which was all part of the astoundingly ******-chilling collapse of Tech TV which was like watching a three-train train wreck in super-slow motion. So I was preconditioned to not like her. Not her fault, and she has definitely won me over since then and since that inane sitcom she was in for about 6 eps a couple years ago, and proved here that she is a lot more than just unbelievably gorgeous, which she is. Part Vietnamese, IIRC. Whatever, it works.

And I agree, Sloan gets the best lines and is probably my favorite character, or at least the one I would like the most if I knew all of them in real life. Many of the other characters are just not all that likable.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

RAD said:


> Sometimes I turn on CC just to try to keep up.
> 
> BTW, don't know about anyone else but I hate how they changed the opening theme music.


I was not aware there was a change, but OK. If one of the knocks against your show is that it is leftist and elitist and pretentious and that the characters are all full of themselves (which is hard to argue against), it seems like the absolute wrong move to have a super-pretentious theme introducing it. So yeah, thumbs down on that, and thank the lord for FFWD.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> To anybody oriented to video editing as Mac is, that chop edit in its raw form was the equivalent of an earthquake, massively obvious. And of course there would have been a shift seen on the guy, nobody holds perfectly still. It's one of those things they figured they could get away with given their laymen audience, not so vid pros. Not even close.
> 
> You'd never get away with an audio edit-only either. The lip flap wouldn't match. Pros can spot that a mile away.


As someone who once did non-linear editing for a living, installs and maintains NLEs, and is still around it daily, I'm afraid I have to disagree.

First, you can edit all the jump cuts you want into the footage, because they can be separated by B-roll (or a cut to a shot of the interviewer, although not in this case because the interview was not done by talent but by a producer, and that in itself is high-handed plot manipulation because virtually any interview of any weight is done by talent, so they cooked the books on the procedural part here just to create the opportunity to put the finger on Jerry--in real TV that does not happen).

And SPOILER ALERT, read this later if you have not seen "Red Team III".

Second, the interview was not an edited interview, it was a series of individual sound bites, meant to be dropped into the show one by one as the anchor referred to them, so there really is no editing for air _per se, _only editing for the production convenience of how these sound bites are rolled in to the broadcast. What Jerry did is _edit the original footage itself out of context, specifically to hide the context, not from the viewers, but from the team._ That is very different than editing for air, and he was able to do this without a jump-cut on air because the clip was an individual sound bite and could start or stop wherever.

Jerry also blurred the TV in the shot in editing, and while that was supposed to be because these things are blurred normally to protect airing rights, Jerry did that to fool the team and hopefully hide his underhandedness from them. What doesn't pass the smell test is that he was clever enough to perform the out of context edit on the clip sent to air by editing it out first in the original raw footage, yet was not clever enough to put the blur on the original raw footage, which made that a clue just waiting to be discovered. Blatant plot manipulation. It would actually have been clearer to the viewer (of _The Newsroom_, not of the fictional news broadcast) if "McMac" had been able to find the original footage with the original quote in its clear original context, and not missing the "*If* we used sarin...", precursor. That might have eliminated a lot of WTFs in HBO homes.

Maybe it is my closeness to this industry, but I could see this coming all the way down Broadway, especially because we all knew Genoa was going to blow up in their faces ahead of time just from the HBO promotion. The whole thing about the General loving B-Ball and him having the TV on and Jerry wanting the medals in the background so he had to have the live TV feed there seemed like a clumsy setup from the beginning. I just knew this was going to be the key to catching Jerry, but I had to wait through 3 more eps and an inane discussion about shot clocks before the other shoe finally dropped, and "McMac" finally allowed this elephant in the room to dawn on her.

They had 4 pieces of "evidence", 3 independent confirmations, another from Will, and 3 high-level long Red Team meetings agonizing over this yet the only one who ever saw the footage of Stomtonavitch was Jerry? A producer from out of town? Nobody from the core team went and looked at it? Cut me a break. That alone fits the definition of "institutional failure".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If he would have blurred the footage and changed the voice before showing it to the team it would not have been "raw footage". The team would have wanted to see the pre-blurred version (which they did see). They saw more than the final edited for air drop in clips.

All the questions that they should have asked before airing the story came up in this week's episode. It was a big "uh oh" moment for everyone involved. Everyone in the institution who each made a little mistake that added up to airing the story.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> I assumed that she looked and didn't see anything wrong ... until she realized that there was a video hint that the footage was edited.
> 
> I'm curious as to why it was not an audio only edit. It was not like one could read his lips. But of course, there had to be some way of proving the bad guy was bad.


What I thought was that MacKenzie didn't check the video early on because she couldn't even consider the idea that Dantana would do such a thing.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Don't need to be a sports fan to enjoy Sports Night, though I can't say from experience myself as I am a fan.


Not being a sports fan, I assumed there would be too many unknown inside joke references relating to teams and players that I would not get.
Plus the whole scenario of a mock sports show that I never have watched in a real form.

It would have been like watching "The Larry Sanders Show" as a viewer who has never watched a late night talk show.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Yeah, I used to love to sit back and watch the whole glorious open with the original awesome theme music, but now it's so toned-down and bland I FF right past it. It just retains a hint of the original Thomas Newman theme. Almost apologetically. A real shame.

If you get a chance, check out Olivia on Letterman (YT), about her crashing on the inside the house swing and her fashion show experience. It's a complete riot, she's amazing!


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

TomCat said:


> As someone who once did non-linear editing for a living, installs and maintains NLEs, and is still around it daily, I'm afraid I have to disagree.
> 
> First, you can edit all the jump cuts you want into the footage, because they can be separated by B-roll (or a cut to a shot of the interviewer, although not in this case because the interview was not done by talent but by a producer, and that in itself is high-handed plot manipulation because virtually any interview of any weight is done by talent, so they cooked the books on the procedural part here just to create the opportunity to put the finger on Jerry--in real TV that does not happen).
> 
> ...


So to boil it down. The reason the CIA informant wanted the basketball game in the shot, was to be proof his testimony was not edited by the interviewer. Very smart.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

When you analyze this show from an insider tech perspective, it tends to fall apart. But it's not designed for us, it's for the masses who know next to nothing.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

armophob said:


> Newsroom is a must watch here. Never saw the sports night show. Not a sports fan, so it never interested me.


You don't have to be a "newsie" to enjoy "The Newsroom" - I'm sure you see that. It's just like that for "Sports Night". It *happens* to be set in a cable sports channel like The Newsroom is set at ACN. In Sports Night's first episode, they hooked me with a scene between the two anchors (one of them being Peter Krause who I couldn't get enough of in "Six Feet Under" and Josh Charles is the other) where Charles makes an impassioned speech to newly-divorce Krause about how bad his now-ex-wife treated him (Krause) with him never realizing it. I thought it was really well done when I fist saw it in 1998. When I re-watched that episode in 2006 right after my now-ex-wife moved out, it hit me like a ton of bricks as my best friend had made almost the exact same speech to me.

It's *that* personal drama that made the show That Damn Good.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Amazing how certain current events are paralleling this Newsroom plot.

I probably should have given Sports Night more of a chance. How many seasons did that run?


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Newsroom just renewed for a third season. Good for me! More Sloane, please!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Maruuk said:


> Amazing how certain current events are paralleling this Newsroom plot.
> 
> I probably should have given Sports Night more of a chance. How many seasons did that run?


45 eps or so, over two and a half seasons, more or less, mas o menos, practically speaking.

What annoys me is that Netflix has just a DVD of it, while it'd be perfect for streaming. Guess I should check out Amazon VOD....


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

Sports Night episodes are now running on FXX on channel 619. They're SD of course.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> Newsroom just renewed for a third season. Good for me! More Sloane, please!


Sort of surprised that it was, didn't think the rating were that good.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

gpg said:


> Sports Night episodes are now running on FXX on channel 619. They're SD of course.


Thanks!

I also found they are in fact streaming on Amazon VOD. Probably a toss up as to vid. quality.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> 45 eps or so, over two and a half seasons, more or less, mas o menos, practically speaking.
> 
> What annoys me is that Netflix has just a DVD of it, while it'd be perfect for streaming. Guess I should check out Amazon VOD....


If you have Amazon Prime (and everybody should) you may be able to stream it free. Amazon streaming has a pretty good selection of TV shows.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

RAD said:


> Sort of surprised that it was, didn't think the rating were that good.


I don't think HBO is as ratings-driven as a broadcast net since they don't have to please advertisers. I mean, they ran two seasons of "John from Cincinnati" didn't they??


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> I don't think HBO is as ratings-driven as a broadcast net since they don't have to please advertisers. I mean, they ran two seasons of "John from Cincinnati" didn't they??


I think ratings play a part of it. While they don't get ad $'s they need to have programming that will cause people to subscribe, or keep subscribing, to HBO so they make the $'s.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Maruuk said:


> If you have Amazon Prime (and everybody should) you may be able to stream it free. Amazon streaming has a pretty good selection of TV shows.


Yes, I do, and I did. PQ was absolute crap, but I am on a 2.8 Megs download. This was on a Sammy smart TV. Dunno if there's an automatic down-rezzing based on internet connection for TVs, but I didn't see a way to try to bump it up.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I'm at 2.4 but Roku does an awesome job of getting me 4 dots strength, about the equivalent of an upconverted DVD. Which for 2.4 is quite good. It's watchable at least. I think the box is as important as the source.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

armophob said:


> So to boil it down. The reason the CIA informant wanted the basketball game in the shot, was to be proof his testimony was not edited by the interviewer. Very smart.


I do not recall him requiring the TV to be in the shot, just for the TV to be on so that he would not miss his beloved playoff game. Of course that ended up making no sense because it was behind him with the sound turned off and he could not see it.

Jerry engineered the shot with the TV in the background, supposedly because he wanted the medals as a backdrop. He did not want the TV but agreed to it to get the shot, knowing he could blur it out in post. Otherwise I would agree with your premise because Stomtonavitch was very smart, and very cagey. And played by the perfect smart, cagey actor. Great casting job. In fact, your very premise went through my mind during the setup for the interview; its just that the reality of what happened does not support that Stomtonavitch engineered that.

But of course it was Aaron Sorkin who engineered and manipulated the entire plot to give them a way to discover the edit. It's just sad that they did not figure out how to tell that story much more convincingly to a lay audience, because there was a large opportunity right there to get that right, yet they (writers/producers) did not.

It's ironic that possibly the best-written scripts of any show in any season also have so many plot holes in them. This is not _Under the Dome _and that is not expected, nor is it very easily tolerated.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

djlong said:


> You don't have to be a "newsie" to enjoy "The Newsroom" - I'm sure you see that. It's just like that for "Sports Night". It *happens* to be set in a cable sports channel like The Newsroom is set at ACN. In Sports Night's first episode, they hooked me with a scene between the two anchors (one of them being Peter Krause who I couldn't get enough of in "Six Feet Under" and Josh Charles is the other) where Charles makes an impassioned speech to newly-divorce Krause about how bad his now-ex-wife treated him (Krause) with him never realizing it. I thought it was really well done when I fist saw it in 1998. When I re-watched that episode in 2006 right after my now-ex-wife moved out, it hit me like a ton of bricks as my best friend had made almost the exact same speech to me.
> 
> It's *that* personal drama that made the show That Damn Good.


Agreed. The newsroom in _The Newsroom_ is just the McGuffin, the thing that doesn't mean anything but is there just to make the plot move and work. Same for _Sports Night_. It serves the same purpose as the statuette in _The Maltese Falcon, _which had no real purpose except to motivate the characters. "Workplace" drama or comedy needs what first? A workplace.

And I don't want to sound like a broken record but yeah, this is what Sorkin can do, hit you with a dramatic issue that can knock you completely over with just a few well-crafted lines. It's like being hit by Mike Tyson. He can expand your mind, and give you a whole new way of thinking. It's magic. He's the best thing to ever happen to TV.

My favorite _Sports Night _is the one where the character played by the always wonderful Joshua Malina (currently still knocking it out of the park in _Scandal_) goes deer hunting. Folks complain about the "speechifying" in Sorkin dramas, but _Oh my living God_ was that a good one that Malina made reporting on his trip. Worth the price of admission for the entire series. _SN_ also gave us Felicity Huffman; nothing wrong there.

If there were two series that were SD that I would still like to go back and watch again (not counting _BuffyTVS_ and_ X-FIles _which I have seen on a loop) they would be _Sports Night _and _The West Wing _(just the Sorkin years).


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> Yes, I do, and I did. PQ was absolute crap, but I am on a 2.8 Megs download. This was on a Sammy smart TV. Dunno if there's an automatic down-rezzing based on internet connection for TVs, but I didn't see a way to try to bump it up.


Downloads typically down-rez to fit how large the pipe is at the moment. Roku, for instance, has 4 levels. You need $60-80 per month internet service to get decent download quality, and even if you do prime time is going to be bit-starved. And if the connection were perfect it would still be 1080p24 or 720p30, both inferior to broadcast and DBS in many ways.

Apparently "I want it right now" trumps "I want it with good quality". I disagree. I would prefer a service that will download overnight for 8 hours if it has to and still maintain original quality. Good luck finding one. I didn't buy a top-shelf HDTV to watch artifacts all day and night.

I can't imagine 2.8, even if it was reliably continuously that high, could be tolerable, which is why downloading is not for me, not yet. Broadcast is at 12-15 mbps, typically, and folks would be surprised at how visually dumbed-down even that is compared to HDTV as delivered to most stations. DTV is at 7-8 mbps, typically (live video delivery). At 2.8, something's got to give.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I WISH it was just a question of money. You spoiled city boys don't realize out here in the sticks 2.4 is all I can get. No cable whatsoever, and 17,000' from the nearest RT. Lucky to get 2.4. ATT of course refuses to upgrade their service because it's not worth it.


----------



## EdJ (Jan 9, 2007)

Maruuk said:


> I WISH it was just a question of money. You spoiled city boys don't realize out here in the sticks 2.4 is all I can get. No cable whatsoever, and 17,000' from the nearest RT. Lucky to get 2.4. ATT of course refuses to upgrade their service because it's not worth it.


Have you looked at the Internet offering from DISH? I don't know if it is better than you have now, but it might be worth looking into.

We are out in the boonies and had to deal with dial-up until they finally ran the cable line out to our area a couple years ago. I have a cable modem now, but it costs $55 a month for it....


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> I WISH it was just a question of money. You spoiled city boys don't realize out here in the sticks 2.4 is all I can get.


Well, didn't mean to hit a sore spot, but I also feel your pain. And we city boys realize it just fine, and never even implied that it was JUST a question of money. Once that is cleared up it appears you are helping to make my argument for me against streaming as a viable delivery method. Streaming in its current form has but one advantage, and that is convenience, and its only convenient if you can get it. Your iPad does not need to be hooked to a coaxial cable or a DBS dish or an antenna or a Blu-Ray player, but let's face facts; that is where acceptable quality lives. There, and countries like South Korea that are not as backward as the USA. Internet speeds are an order of magnitude faster there.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

EdJ said:


> Have you looked at the Internet offering from DISH? I don't know if it is better than you have now, but it might be worth looking into.
> 
> We are out in the boonies and had to deal with dial-up until they finally ran the cable line out to our area a couple years ago. I have a cable modem now, but it costs $55 a month for it....


I looked, and all packages on the first page note it's bundled with Dish TV service.... 
We country boys don't get no respect! </Dangerfield.>


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I really loved the first season of this show. This season while not awful by any means, still better than most shows, isn't living up to the standard Sorkin set in season one. Granted the bar was set pretty high, but I'm still a little disappointed when last season would just blow me away on a regular basis and this year, well it's still good just not as many "wow" moments for me I guess.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> I really loved the first season of this show. This season while not awful by any means, still better than most shows, isn't living up to the standard Sorkin set in season one. Granted the bar was set pretty high, but I'm still a little disappointed when last season would just blow me away on a regular basis and this year, well it's still good just not as many "wow" moments for me I guess.


It's odd. I agree that as a season I liked season 1 better. And yet there was one episode this season that I think was the best one of the series and last week was probably the funniest the show has ever been - some really great one-liners.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Season 1 was told chronologically. We followed the action along with the characters with little hint of what was coming next (other than knowing the show would last so many episodes and seeing next week's show description in the guide).

Season 2 was mostly flashback. We were greeted with changes at the beginning of the first show that were explained over the length of the season. Only when we got caught up did we get to go chronologically again.

I prefer the chronological story telling. The ratings are down (slightly) this year so perhaps others do not like this year's arc.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

EdJ said:


> Have you looked at the Internet offering from DISH? I don't know if it is better than you have now, but it might be worth looking into.
> 
> We are out in the boonies and had to deal with dial-up until they finally ran the cable line out to our area a couple years ago. I have a cable modem now, but it costs $55 a month for it....


Heck, I'd go SAT but for the brutal gating levels. I need to stream stuff and once you go down that road with the restrictive SAT data limits you're sunk quick.

Also I don't know how it is now, but back when I had Wild Blue (or whatever it was called) back in the day (the original SAT broadband) there was really nasty latency and super slow page loads. You had to wait 3-5 seconds for anything to happen. And then it happened gradually. Ridiculous. I was shocked when I went to DSL how things happened...NOW, not later! They just don't happen enough at 2.4.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Season 1 was told chronologically. We followed the action along with the characters with little hint of what was coming next (other than knowing the show would last so many episodes and seeing next week's show description in the guide).Season 2 was mostly flashback. We were greeted with changes at the beginning of the first show that were explained over the length of the season. Only when we got caught up did we get to go chronologically again.I prefer the chronological story telling. The ratings are down (slightly) this year so perhaps others do not like this year's arc.


That's the explanation that makes sense - I could not figure out why this season didn't feel as smooth. My wife hates the flashback flashforward story-telling style I think because sometimes she dozes off and there is no continuity to allow you to figure out what's going on.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Correct. If you are paying rapt attention year two is as easy, well almost, to follow as year one. If not, it can lower your enjoyment quotient. Not everything is_ Pulp Fiction _and deserves time-fractured presentation just to be trendy; it should be used only when it can add something other than glitz.

I love the show and most characters (boy, Jane Fonda sure did chew up the scenery, didn't she?) but I hate the insipid love triangles. And Jim skyping his girlfriend on a public stairwell without headphones? That was just stupid.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

TomCat said:


> I love the show and most characters (boy, Jane Fonda sure did chew up the scenery, didn't she?) but I hate the insipid love triangles. And Jim skyping his girlfriend on a public stairwell without headphones? That was just stupid.


That being the case, you're going to love the season finale. :sure:

In fact, it could have been a very good series finale. Which contrary to earlier tweets by Jeff Daniels, it may very well have been - see 'The Newsroom' Season 3: Not So Fast, Says HBO On Renewal . Or this story which explains that Sorkin's time commitment for this show may be a bit much:



Spoiler



Though Jeff Daniels tweeted a couple of weeks ago that HBO had renewed "The Newsroom," this turned out to be premature; "We are excited about proceeding to a Season 3 and are continuing our conversations with Aaron about schedules," HBO said in a statement the next day. And Aaron Sorkin is indeed a very busy man, going through the most prolific and acclaimed stretch of his screenwriting career. Unlike NBC and Warner Bros. with "West Wing," this isn't a show that's going to continue without him, and it's an enormous time commitment for a guy who's beloved elsewhere and catching a lot of grief week in and week out for this show. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that these delays are part scheduling, part Sorkin wondering if he needs the hassle.

And parts of "Election Night, Part 2" played an awful lot like Sorkin wrapping up various bits of business in a neat bow in the event he chooses not to continue the show. Will and Mac hash out all their old issues and get engaged, Leona and Reese put the full weight of the company behind the "News Night" staff, Sloan kisses Don, and Jim brokers a peace between Lisa and Maggie. There was even a meta moment where Taylor invited Will to respond to the charges the show often gets in real life: that Will claims to be a Republican so he has easier cover to attack the right. (And let me remind you of the No Politics rule here; we're not going to get into the substance of Will's reply to that question, nor to the show's general portrait of Democrats vs. Republicans.)

There are still personal stories for these characters Sorkin could tell in a third season and beyond (the inevitable Jim/Maggie pairing, for one...), but that episode felt like an attempt to give the characters, and the show, a happy ending.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> That being the case, you're going to love the season finale. :sure:


Plenty of staircase Skyping and a flashback to season 1 episode 1! 



phrelin said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> There was even a meta moment where Taylor invited Will to respond to the charges the show often gets in real life: that Will claims to be a Republican so he has easier cover to attack the right. (And let me remind you of the No Politics rule here; we're not going to get into the substance of Will's reply to that question, nor to the show's general portrait of Democrats vs. Republicans.)


For a real show guilty of that look no further than Stephen Colbert. But, to be fair, I don't believe there is a single Colbert Report viewer that doesn't know the difference between the portrayal and the person ... and they understand that it is a comedy act using reality as fodder.

Much in the same way that Sorkin has used reality as fodder in his dramas. Occasionally warped reality but that is the root of fiction. I hope he decides to continue the series. I like his work.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I will say job well done in the finale of season 2! As I was saying above i wasn't loving season 2 as much as 1 but last nights ep made up for it!


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Even I was swept away by the love-triangle resolutions. I am not normally a fan of those sorts of things, but this was well done.

Here is what irks me--much of the writing is as good as it gets, and many of the characters are as likable as they can be, but those same characters do and say some of the stupidest, most bone-headed things you might imagine. While I like the show, there is plenty for haters to grab on to.

I feel cheated that we only get 13 eps a year for this, while Honey Boo Boo and other insipid fare seems to be on constantly. _America's Got Talent _(a show where even the title itself reflects stupid bad grammar) will air something like 51 hours of content this season alone. At least it has my avatar as one of the judges.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

Even I was swept away by the love-triangle resolutions. I am not normally a fan of those sorts of things, but this was well done.

Here is what irks me--much of the writing is as good as it gets, and many of the characters are as likable as they can be, but those same characters do and say some of the stupidest, most bone-headed things you might imagine. While I like the show, there is plenty for haters to grab on to.

I feel cheated that we only get 13 eps a year for this, while Honey Boo Boo and other insipid fare seems to be on constantly. America's Got Talent (a show where even the title itself reflects stupid bad grammar) will air something like 51 hours of content this season alone. At least it has my avatar as one of the judges.

I completely agree with you. I'm guessing that cost comes into play with The Newsroom. AGT and that disgusting southern family don't cost nearly as much to put on the air unfortunately. 
Sent from the other side of the Milky Way with my S4.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

The two trivial pursuits were mind-numbingly absurd and time-wasters (the unsigned book and the Wiki Cambridge credit). Nobody acts like that, talks like that, or would be obsessed about those things in the middle of critical work. Crazy writing. It's almost like Sorkin's a drug addict. Oh that's right, he even admits it.

The insistence on getting fired was patently ridiculous, nobody in the media demands to be fired from jobs paying millions. Another bizarre absurdity.

The endless Sabbith cut-offs. Not funny, completely fake-looking, and a real insult to her rapidly developing character and as an actress as well. Terrible writing.

Now Don/Sloane and Jim/Hallie (Meryl Streep's kid) are cute and fine. And even Jim's touching concern over Maggie works. That's a particularly good one in that he's (hopefully) acting as a friend. Not all valid relationships have to be about undying love or sex. Though what was the point about Jim acting like a lovesick fool over skanky Lisa upstairs? Does he have to be in love with 3 women at the same time?

And why don't they write associate producer/booker Tamara Hart (Wynn Everett) more into the show??









She's totally gorgeous but just used as a background prop. Like the guys in the newsroom wouldn't be all over her!

Impossible to make any sense out of the whole Will/Mac insanely intellectual wank job. "You think I'm the sort of person who would not fire you out of concern for my position as a newsman in the context of this company and blah blah blah blah......" Then "I used you to get back at him for rejecting me though I really loved you but didn't know but now I think you didn't fire me because of your own self-importance blah blah blah blah...." Who cares about either of these endlessly intellectualizing bobbleheads who speak perfect incomprehensible Sorkinese jibber jabber??

And they get together? And take all the sexual tension and love/hate out of the show? Remember the marriage on "Friends"?? Worst couple...ever.

Worst season ender......ever.

Sorkin hasn't just jumped the shark here, I'd throw in a couple of blue whales in the bargain. Move on, HBO. Move on. Unless you give us more Tamara and less Lisa next year!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Guess it depends on your sense of "romance."


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Big cast shows like Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire and Newsroom are true budget-busters for networks, especially when you factor in the megabux the showrunners/producers (Sorkin/Weiner/Chase/etc) get. Networks can afford to make them because of the Honey Boo Boos and dancing and singing and chase and reality shows in general, which cost ten cents, relatively. Though pay channels like HBO and newcomer-to-series-streaming Netflix can subsidize them in other ways. "Girls" and "Real Sex" and "Enlightened" are dirt cheap. Netflix has a whole other biz model.

Bottom line: the profit margins on "Duck Dynasty" and "Sons of Anarchy" buy quality programming for the rest of us.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Well it's great to have two complex characters in love. Just don't render their dialog and motivations so complex and self-defeating as to be literally incomprehensible!

The one moment I felt something for Will and Mac was when Will realized that it was Mac at the back of the room with the magic signs in that first ep. The two of them have never needed anything more than that to seal their love. The next 50,000 words between them left me nothing but cold. They've gradually deflated the power of that initial soaring moment into apathy.

What could have saved it would be simple. Have the Republican bee-yatch who Will had given permission to beat him up say snarkily on live TV, "And you're the very guy who said America isn't a great country anymore!" Then he replies, slowly, as we see Mac's signs in flashback at the back of the room...

"It isn't. But..._it could be_. Will you please excuse me?"

He then runs offscreen on live TV to take Mac into his arms and whip the ring out. Now THAT'S entertainment. That's a Frank Capra moment, not an Aaron Sorkin moment.

Instead, the "epiphany" that rekindled his ardor was about some confused pretzel logic Mensa moment so involved as to need a philosophy professor to parse it all out. Limp.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

The insistence on getting fired was patently ridiculous, nobody in the media demands to be fired from jobs paying millions. Another bizarre absurdity.

It's called journalistic integrity. 
Sent from the other side of the Milky Way with my S4.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Which a) Doesn't exist anymore and b ) If it did, wouldn't be expressed in this mass suicide of an entire newsroom. In fact, even the show corrected itself! In the end, everybody realizes quitting is an incredibly stupid thing to do! As it was incredibly stupid of the writers to suggest they would even consider it in the first place!


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

Which a) Doesn't exist anymore and b ) If it did, wouldn't be expressed in this mass suicide of an entire newsroom. In fact, even the show corrected itself! In the end, everybody realizes quitting is an incredibly stupid thing to do! As it was incredibly stupid of the writers to suggest they would even consider it in the first place!

I believe it exists somewhere. Outside the main stream. Outside Fox News. Outside MSNBC. Outside CNN. It's out there. I know it is. 
Sent from the other side of the Milky Way with my S4.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> > The two trivial pursuits were mind-numbingly absurd and time-wasters (the unsigned book and the Wiki Cambridge credit). Nobody acts like that, talks like that, or would be obsessed about those things in the middle of critical work. Crazy writing. It's almost like Sorkin's a drug addict. Oh that's right, he even admits it.
> >
> > The insistence on getting fired was patently ridiculous, nobody in the media demands to be fired from jobs paying millions. Another bizarre absurdity.
> >
> ...





> Impossible to make any sense out of the whole Will/Mac insanely intellectual wank job.


I am finding it hard to find fault with that assessment. I am not as much in agreement with your stronger comments. A little tough on Sorkin; a great many of artistic types, including some of the most successful and enduring writers and painters and musicians from the last four centuries (not to mention a lot more of the unsuccessful forgotten ones) have had issues much more horrifying than Sorkin snorting a line or two every once in a while. Weed has recently become a Hollywood accoutrement among many successful actors and producers, and coke basically drove everything in the 80's. But true, even if he is the best writer out there (many disagree) not everything put on the page is a gem.

Just what about Lisa earns her the perjorative "Skanky". Please explain this for us. She seems pretty normal to me, and she has a right to be a little pissed at Maggie. I am puzzled that you seem to hate certain women so much for no apparent reason (it seems to be a pattern). Somebody must have hurt you really bad. At least we are starting to see a type that you seem to be OK with. Actually, all of those news chicks are pretty cute (and I would include Maggie if her eyes weren't disturbingly way too close together), but stand any one of them next to Sloan and they look like trolls by comparison. Sloan just seems to get more stunning every day. No one has those cheekbones.

But I honestly did not get what they were going for with Will treating Sloan so shabbily on air; that did not add up. Actually, a lot did not add up. But, bottom line, even the "worst season-ender ever" out of a universe of two, is still better than 98% of the rest of the drivel on the air.

You want to know what is really lame? The new format for this forum. I'm not sure it could be more of a downgrade than it has been, from the previous format. Must have got it cheap.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Maruuk said:


> Which a) Doesn't exist anymore and b ) If it did, wouldn't be expressed in this mass suicide of an entire newsroom. In fact, even the show corrected itself! In the end, everybody realizes quitting is an incredibly stupid thing to do! As it was incredibly stupid of the writers to suggest they would even consider it in the first place!


Don't forget the entire premise of the show (and most of Sorkin's writing) ...
*Sorkin's world doesn't exist. But it should.*

Sorkin writes from the perspective of the way it should be done. In a perfect world when someone screws up that much they take responsibility for their part of the failure ... not find some scapegoat. You're right that in the real world the real world staff of a newsroom would look for the scapegoat to save their own skin. Wouldn't it be nice if principle ruled over self-preservation?

In the end the staff decided that the greater good was staying on the job and sacrificing their personal pride (all of the nasty stories that will come out in the suit) for the ability to make a difference. With all their faults they can still make a difference.

At least in Sorkin's world ... which we have been fortunate enough to be invited in to for a respite from our world.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Well the show spends a lot of effort to present a REAL newsroom with realistic people in it making real decisions as they do in the real newsroom world. This silly fantasy stuff out of the blue undermines that. The show could deal with a bit more grit and hard reality, not artificial situations designed to make heavy-handed moralistic poses.

But I get the Sorkin sell--right back to West Wing. Create a "realistic" world, then create a bunch of utterly fantastical events met with impossible nobility and courage and genius to create god-like characters with just the right amount of flaws. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It gets silly a lot, as in "gimme a break" silly. But I do respect the emotion in that theme song that says "America may not be great...but it can be." They need way more of that in the show. Actual journalism as the show teases us with really is part of what can bring America back from the brink.

Now, these shows are fiction and the characters are designed to manipulate me in various ways. I, and you, are marks for HBO. They need to bamboozle us into liking the show one way or another. Sometimes with wit, sometimes with humor, sometimes with sex, whatever works, we need to be seduced, it's the oldest profession in the world. The characters aren't real people, the women for the most part are designed to be sexy and attractive. They are objects made of pixels shot at our eyeballs to effect a particular set of Pavlovian responses. They are no more deserving of consideration as actual living human beings than an ashtray or a toaster. The actresses would say they "create a character". Exactly. The characters are cardboard cutouts of people. Animated purpose-built mannequins. I can't offend a fake character. There's nothing offensive about insulting a mannequin. Or the character of Lisa who describes herself as "overweight, 30, stupid, a loser." in comparison to the younger, skinnier, cuter and vastly more successful women she finds herself in competition with. Lisa's not even real! I can say whatever I want about any of these fake characters. Actors are people. Characters are objects. They are supposed to be kicked around or worshiped as objects, that's the entire fun of it.

I do hope they come back to deal with actual huge, current, journalistically fraught issues like Snowden and the NSA etc. Be interesting to see what Will would do with all that. Not so much Sam Waterston. He just seems drunk or on drugs all the time, waving his hands around and screaming. Not sure what his point is as a character. Even the other characters just stare at him like, "What's the point of this guy?".


----------



## Bronxiniowa (Apr 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> If he would have blurred the footage and changed the voice before showing it to the team it would not have been "raw footage". The team would have wanted to see the pre-blurred version (which they did see). They saw more than the final edited for air drop in clips.
> 
> All the questions that they should have asked before airing the story came up in this week's episode. It was a big "uh oh" moment for everyone involved. Everyone in the institution who each made a little mistake that added up to airing the story.


Big question no one asked was: "Does s/he have an ax to grind"? First rule when you employ a source you absolutely do not know. Of course, if the ACN news team had pursued this, they would have found plenty of axes in the woodshop, and the story arc would have melted away. But this sort of thing happens on every procedural. Real cops, lawyers, doctors, etc. don't do things like their TV counterparts.


----------



## Bronxiniowa (Apr 14, 2013)

Maruuk said:


> Well the show spends a lot of effort to present a REAL newsroom with realistic people in it making real decisions as they do in the real newsroom world. This silly fantasy stuff out of the blue undermines that. The show could deal with a bit more grit and hard reality, not artificial situations designed to make heavy-handed moralistic poses.
> 
> But I get the Sorkin sell--right back to West Wing. Create a "realistic" world, then create a bunch of utterly fantastical events met with impossible nobility and courage and genius to create god-like characters with just the right amount of flaws. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It gets silly a lot, as in "gimme a break" silly. But I do respect the emotion in that theme song that says "America may not be great...but it can be." They need way more of that in the show. Actual journalism as the show teases us with really is part of what can bring America back from the brink.
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm not sure that every character is a caricature. I have known producers like Maggie Jordan, Don Keefer and Jim Harper, and on-air personalities like Sloan. And Charlie Skinner reminds me of Ben Bradlee, the real-life former executive editor of the Washington Post who was in charge during the paper's Watergate scandal beats.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Oh yeah, didn't mean the characters were cartoons or exaggerated. Well, Charlie has gotta be weirder than Ben Bradlee (who could have been my father-in-law except for fate). Just that they're all fictional and it's just as valid to call a male character "that fat shmuck guy" as a female a "skank". There's nobody to offend.

I just didn't like where they took Will & Mac. I like how those 2 deal with electronic journalism in general, just not human relationships. Sorkin turned them into Sorkinbots. Nobody deals with love that way unless they're in an institution. But really the young love plot twists are ok. Hallie is growing on me. I like that Maggie has gone crazy. Sloane's always great. Lisa is kinda boring. Jim's really in love with Lisa??


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Don't forget the entire premise of the show (and most of Sorkin's writing) ...
> *Sorkin's world doesn't exist. But it should.*
> 
> Sorkin writes from the perspective of the way it should be done. In a perfect world when someone screws up that much they take responsibility for their part of the failure ... not find some scapegoat. You're right that in the real world the real world staff of a newsroom would look for the scapegoat to save their own skin. Wouldn't it be nice if principle ruled over self-preservation?
> ...


Ah, idealism! It's sad we have to enter Sorkin's world to find it in journalism or politics.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Or even in any media. Sorkin is a rare holdout for Old Skool Americana, a kind of Frank Capra-meets-Norman Rockwell-meets-liberal hipster sensibilities. It's charmingly retro and deserves a spot on TV in this intensely cynical age.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

It's coming back for one last season.

http://thefutoncritic.com/news/2014/01/13/hbos-emmy-winning-drama-series-the-newsroom-to-begin-production-on-third-and-final-season-225512/20140113hbo02/


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

James Long said:


> ... in the real world the real world staff of a newsroom would look for the scapegoat to save their own skin. Wouldn't it be nice if principle ruled over self-preservation?
> ...


I can tell you from first-hand that Finger Pointing 101 and Blame Placing 202 are the basic courses most journalists I have met excelled in, and they practice that every day, or at least whenever the waters get choppy.

But I think another season is a no-brainer, and my guess would be that talking Sorkin into more than one might be difficult.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Trilogies work.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

It seems like that they show just started and now its going to end.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Exactly. It's just starting to establish itself and the way it uses real news as the core plot driver, and now they're wrapping it up before it really had a chance to take off. Probably because it has a huge cast and it's too expensive. A lot of shows get shut down for that.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I think you just described Game of Thrones. Of course, that show is a cultural phenomenon. It's biggest threat is George R.R. Martin.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> ...It's just starting to establish itself and the way it uses real news as the core plot driver, and now they're wrapping it up before it really had a chance to take off. Probably because it has a huge cast and it's too expensive. A lot of shows get shut down for that.


I can't imagine its expensive. It's shot indoors on a single set, basically (a few easy remote locations), and it's HBO, who is notoriously cheap. No one in the cast other than Jeff Daniels is really a named star, most are B and C level or well below. And really, no one's looking for Jeff Daniels, other than now because he won an Emmy quite unexpectedly, _for this show._

_Boardwalk Empire?_ Now _that _is expensive; the pilot alone cost 13 million; you could fund a number of seasons of _The Newsroom _for that. Also on cheap old HBO, with a much larger cast and tons of different sets.

Aaron Sorkin can basically write his own ticket; he is probably the most sought-after writer working, and for good reason. Vince Gilligan would be shoved into the drink from people trying to get past him to Aaron Sorkin. And mercurial artistic types like Sorkin are easily bored. He bailed on _The West Wing_, ferchrissake, one of the best writing opportunities imaginable. He is probably more interested, at least after 3 seasons of _The Newsroom_, for new frontiers the quality and scope of _The Social Network_, which was amazing, and is probably pretty deep into the Steve Jobs biopic at the moment. Bottom line, I still think it is Sorkin driving the quick exit here.

My advice to Sorkin? Lay out a couple of seasons; blow your wad elsewhere, and then see if HBO wants to pick it up again.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Anything Sorkin touches is expensive since he takes the lion's share of the cash.

Basically Sorkin is great at complex poltical and media reality dynamics, he knows how to sell a fictional world as compelling reality--but not so great at character depth or romantic situations. The characters in The Newsroom all seem like marionettes being spastically manipulated by a guy with familial tremors. They're not that compelling and have little arc, we're already seeing a lot of repeat neurotic syndromes between the characters. Boring. Mack and Will Jumped the Shark in season one. At this point the only one a I care a whit about is Sloane. She needs a spinoff all her own. I'd watch her read the Dow Jones ticker.

Sorkin is good, but he's overrated. The Social Network and Charlie Wilson's War had all their dramatic and relationship problems solved in the books: Ben Mezrich's 2009 book _The Accidental Billionaires_ and George Crile III's 2003 book _Charlie Wilson's War._ Not to mention historical reality which did a lot of the creative development itself.

The Newsroom is easily the preachiest, most political soap box-like of all his work. The only reason he got away with it was that HBO agreed to hands-off on content. And the West Wing was no Lefty diatribe slouch, either.

The Newsroom works better conceptually than it does in reality. But at least it's smart and does give insight into the fragile morality of modern infotainment, formerly "news".


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

All good points.

I only have a hunch about the romantic entanglements on the show, and that hunch is that Sorkin probably hates writing them, so he sort of phones that in. He may be a great writer, but I think he has an ego to match, and figures he can whip off that stuff without even breathing hard and still have it better than what most other writers would labor over, but then that of course dilutes it into stuff not that far above, or maybe not above at all, romantic stuff written by writers who love to write that kind of stuff, even if they are not quite in Sorkin's league.

Robert and Michelle King over at _The Good Wife_ come to mind, because the romantic aspects of that show are up to the level of the palace intrigue, political machinations, and core story of Alicia Florek dealing with her world, all of which are top-shelf. They seem to take great care in all parts of the script, and are very skilled in that endeavor. They can write an entire script, and in fact 22 entire scripts per season, and not have one line or one scene be uninteresting, or have it be so "Sorkin-like" that it causes some members of the audience to howl or take to Twitter to register their complaints.

By comparison, Sorkin, who has plenty of detractors, is a shooting star who when writing about what he cares about has no peers whatsoever, but when adding in the stuff he doesn't really care for he phones it in between yawns, and we as viewers just have to tolerate it, power through it until the next mind-bendingly brilliant nugget about what Sorkin really wants to write about appears in the next scene, which is usually worth the trip.

IOW, when they pitched this show, the suits at HBO while officially hands-off, giving _carte blanche,_ and taking a no-tinkering position, very likely convinced Sorkin and Co. that HBO would probably balk at a show that was just about the procedural aspect of a news organization that had a political tone, and urged him to shoehorn stuff into the show that would make it also a soap opera that would broaden its appeal to the great unwashed. And I think he capitulated to get green-lighted. Which also may be why he is ready to move on after 36 episodes.

Bottom line, as a compromise, in his writer workflow Sorkin blasts quickly, maybe even unconsciously, through a few romantic scenes as capitulation to what the suits want, just so he can also really concentrate on blowing us away with the stuff he really cares about. He may be even thinking about the scenes and lines he cares about at the very same time he is churning out the romantic scenes on autopilot.

The reason I think this is not all that far-fetched is because that is exactly how most brilliant geniuses think and behave. Mercurial, of course. Unpredictable? Not so much.

Again, just a hunch.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm not even sure he phones it in - there are a number of other writers with credits in various episodes including women - which makes me think he gives them a half hour to put together a romantic scene for him to shoehorn in. He wouldn't want to waste a half hour, after all. :grin:


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

And don't forget he originally forged his blitzkrieg dialog style on a wide variety of powerful uppers, whether or not he's clean now. His dialog is often meth-dense because he was meth-dense when he wrote it!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Too many words! Fine in some scenes, but not almost every damned one.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Maruuk said:


> And don't forget he originally forged his blitzkrieg dialog style on a wide variety of powerful uppers, whether or not he's clean now. His dialog is often meth-dense because he was meth-dense when he wrote it!


Meth-dense! Love it..


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Too bad it is a fantasy. Mushrooms, cocaine, pot, yes. There is nothing pointing to him using meth.

As a former user of all of that (a little of the first two; a lot of the third 25+ years ago) I can attest to how it* does not *make you a better writer, artist, musician, engineer, or more socially adept. Sorkin is basically Sorkin the great writer* in spite of *his drug use, which some might _mistakenly _view as a postitive commercial for drug use. Mistakenly.

That said, drugs have different affects on different people. Sorkin claims it leveled him out and made him "straighter"; the common saying "let's get straight" among drug users actually has non-ironic origins, and that is true for many. For the rest of us, it just makes us unbelievably stupid.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Coke is frequently cut with meth and other "uppers", and has its own frantic meth-like effect even solo.

I know a guy who smoked and still smokes massive amounts of strong pot to get "normal". And it seems to work. This is an amount that would level you or me. Some folks are just wired really weird and have bizarre needs to cope with normal life. Then there are the just plain addicts who are trying to run away from normal life and are wired to be addicted to something. I know guys born to basic addiction, they were hooked on booze by high school. Genetic makeup. Really tragic stuff. Sometimes rehab works for them, but only sometimes.

Sorkin is a really talented guy, no doubt. But important to note that like many famous writers, he has big blind spots that his other writing covers up. Just as George Lucas and Steven Spielberg can NOT write/direct a love scene or a romantic relationship credible for an audience over the age of 6, neither can Sorkin. They should all just hire Diablo Cody to write their relationship scenes. Maybe they'd be full of snark, attititude and mumblecore, but at least they'd be remotely convincing and at least slightly erotic. Elements these creaky old White men have never gotten anywheres near in their entire careers.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Again, excellent points.

I once read that folks who are "thrill-seekers", you know, the kind of guy who has to base jump off of anything higher than a grain elevator or wants to skateboard naked down Mulholland Drive at midnight, do this because it causes a certain chemical process to occur in their brains. And the really fascinating thing is that those who are the opposite of "thrill-seekers", who wouldn't even consider using a stairway that had no handrail, have the exact same process happen in their brains, except that all it takes for them to get the same chemical effect is to read a good book or listen to a smooth jazz recording on Pandora.

There but for the grace of God...


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

My brother was one of those thrill-seeker guys, started racing cars and jumping out of airplanes as a teenager. Like you say, that's the only way he could feel the same dopamine or whatever rush I do when a gorgeous girl merely walks by. I never needed to risk life and limb to feel fully alive. But he did. Wiring differences. As we examine lifting drug sanctions this whole human disparity thing should be a major factor. Pot just makes me drowsy, but it can literally save lives for others. Humans don't react uniformly to drugs and laws need to allow for that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps Sorkin should put some of these thrills in the show (beyond the laced brownies).


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> ...Wiring differences. As we examine lifting drug sanctions this whole human disparity thing should be a major factor. Pot just makes me drowsy, but it can literally save lives for others. Humans don't react uniformly to drugs and laws need to allow for that.


That is a truly brilliant idea.

It also makes sense, especially if you have ever read one of those meds package inserts regarding "possible side effects". OTC drugs all work somewhat differently depending on your individual chemistry, and illegal drugs therefore most likely do too.

Another example: I suffered from seasonal depression from as early as I can remember, but when it got worse in 1995 I decided to beat it. SSRIs were new, and light therapy was in its infancy. SAD itself was barely more than a rumor, not even yet in the DSM-IV. SSRIs didn't work very well, and they don't work very well for a lot of folks. I bought a full-spectrum 10K-unit light box from a company in Alaska (lots of SAD sufferers the further north you go) which still comes on at 5:18 AM every morning in my bedroom, which helped greatly. The best $360 I ever spent, and I have had to replace the bulbs and ballast every few years.

Then, my research stumbled upon something called SAM-E, which is a naturally-occuring substance now available in every supermarket. I take that 5-6 times a week, and _it makes me completely normal_; I have not had a bout of depression in the last 17 years or so.

But a relative of mine, who is mildly depressed, takes it and it just makes him feel "funny", while I feel nothing but normalcy.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Same-E is one of the new wonder drugs that can change lives. It does about 30 amazing beneficial things at the same time--top two being arthritis aid and mood enhancer. A friend's mom couldn't get out of her chair with arthritis and I turned her on to Sam-E, she was up and walking and feeling great within the week. My friend called it a miracle. Mood-wise, Sam-E doesn't make you happy, but it does prevent you from sinking into obsessive and depressive low spots during the day. And gives you extra energy as well. With Sam-E, you feel more optimistic and positive. It's a naturally-occurring chemical that simply depletes after age 35, you're just restoring what's supposed to be there. Pretty much everybody I know is using it, and loving it. Take it in the morning, though, it can keep you up at night it you take it too late. Yet it has no "speedy" effect, no caffeine or "upper" component, just works gently and naturally.

It's products like Sam-E and COQ10 that explain why our parents' generation was acting old and decrepit in their 60's and we're not. These naturally-occurring things deplete badly after 50 and leave the human body a train wreck. Replace them and you feel a whole heck of a lot better, and ARE better. I tried this new Ecklonia Cava stuff, basically brown Korean seaweed extract, and went from 166 bad cholesterol down to 64 in one month. My cardiologist was literally shocked. Man, as Don Fagen said, "What a beautiful world this will be/What a glorious time to be free". The future is now, baby.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

:backtotop I've watched both seasons this week and thoroughly enjoyed it.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I'm looking forward to its return, for sure. If just for another hit of his wild-eyed idealism at a time of maximum cynicism.

"Forums are like card games. You have to talk the game to keep it going. But it wouldn't be nearly as much fun without the other stuff that comes up."


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

I enjoyed the finale, even though I didn't think it was a great episode. I am sorry to see the series end.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I was only keep HBO around for this series, not that it's gone bye bye HBO.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

We enjoyed the finale. I thought some elements were very well designed to bring the show to a close, better than many series finales I've seen in the past few years.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

I wish HBO would have kept it. It was engaging and fun to watch.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

If I remember correctly the problem wasn't HBO, it was Aaron Sorkin who was stretched too thin even when Season 3 was renewed.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

After Boardwalk Empire ended, I was going to drop it until GoT and Silicon Valley (then Westworld), but now that they are re-releasing The Wire, I'll probably keep it.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

I watched and I liked how it completed the story from the beginning to end. 

RIP Newsroom.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

This ending left the same taste in my mouth (a decent one) as did the ending of "Six Feet Under". It wrapped up everyone's primary story - the only difference being that everyone still had a future - and left no threads hanging.

This was certainly no "Sopranos" ending!


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

No spoilers for 6ft Under please. I have 2 more seasons to go .


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I like Sorkin and hope that some day he makes something that runs as long as The West Wing again.

BTW: The episode title, "What Kind of Day Has it Been" rang a bell for me from the WW years ... and apparently Sorkin has used it in several series as either a season or series ending show title.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

For those curious enough to check, IMDB.com can be a boon. I couldn't - or won't- watch a series that's not current without it.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Sorkin's projects always stand out for their superior writing. The only slight issue I have with his material is exactly the fact that sometimes his characters just spew forth this amazing stream of dialog that's so perfect in every way and it just goes on and on that you end up thinking, there's no way anyone could just do that off the top of their head. In other words it sounds like someone had to memorize a script and practice it many times over to get it that perfect. But usually what's being said is poignant enough that you really don't care too much.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> Sorkin's projects always stand out for their superior writing. The only slight issue I have with his material is exactly the fact that sometimes his characters just spew forth this amazing stream of dialog that's so perfect in every way and it just goes on and on that you end up thinking, there's no way anyone could just do that off the top of their head. In other words it sounds like someone had to memorize a script and practice it many times over to get it that perfect. But usually what's being said is poignant enough that you really don't care too much.


I truly admire the effective use of the monologue as we see it in Sorkin's work. We rarely see it on American series television because it takes too much time to write and requires a "single-tasking" audience.


----------

