or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › The Newsroom (HBO)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Newsroom (HBO) - Page 2

post #16 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenRose View Post

I like the show. I think it has real potential and I also really liked Luck and was disappointed that it was cancelled. I am just wishing this could be a bit more balanced. I have to be honest, I am not a "tea party" guy and I did agree with the episode last week, but I think both the right and left wings of both parties are out to lunch and this show seems to only look at the far right of the Republican party. Also, I have noticed a bit of woman bashing on this show...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

The show makes me chuckle. It's like Talking Points Memo come to life.
I enjoyed his "campaign for civility" getting off the tracks whenever he would do things like call a woman a "bitch" to her face.

Yup, the pretty obvious shallow writing of the female characters and the general low level of misogyny is part of what makes me chuckle given the liberal nature of the show and its writer. Have you noticed that all the main female characters seem to have their vagina as their prime professional asset?
post #17 of 76
I have. And honestly the stereotypes are taking away from the enjoyment of the show for me. The one girl who keeps having her outbursts and panic attacks, I know it's suppose to be humorous but I just find it irritating. Perhaps I just have too high expectations for this. I was expecting to get "the wire" of cable news and instead I think we are getting a lower quality than the west wing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Yup, the pretty obvious shallow writing of the female characters and the general low level of misogyny is part of what makes me chuckle given the liberal nature of the show and its writer. Have you noticed that all the main female characters seem to have their vagina as their prime professional asset?
post #18 of 76
The show is really growing on me. Neurotic girl and her roommate are annoying. My jaw nearly dropped when Olivia Munn's character implied the Glass-Steagall act was the sole reason we had great economic growth between its passing and repeal. Not to mention we won WW2 when it was in place. I was surprised she didn't go further by explaining that 9/11 took place after glass steagall was repealed. A missed opportunity.

The end of episode five had me rolling my eyes. Will watch again though
post #19 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joffrey View Post

The show is really growing on me. Neurotic girl and her roommate are annoying. My jaw nearly dropped when Olivia Munn's character implied the Glass-Steagall act was the sole reason we had great economic growth between its passing and repeal. Not to mention we won WW2 when it was in place. I was surprised she didn't go further by explaining that 9/11 took place after glass steagall was repealed. A missed opportunity.

The end of episode five had me rolling my eyes. Will watch again though

I also like how she blamed the repeal of Glass-Steagal on Reagan. That was some awesome propaganda as you know there is crap ton of, and I use this word to indicate only the most extreme and dumb, libtards, repeating that at work today.
post #20 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Yup, the pretty obvious shallow writing of the female characters and the general low level of misogyny is part of what makes me chuckle given the liberal nature of the show and its writer. Have you noticed that all the main female characters seem to have their vagina as their prime professional asset?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenRose View Post

I have. And honestly the stereotypes are taking away from the enjoyment of the show for me. The one girl who keeps having her outbursts and panic attacks, I know it's suppose to be humorous but I just find it irritating. Perhaps I just have too high expectations for this. I was expecting to get "the wire" of cable news and instead I think we are getting a lower quality than the west wing.
My wife has been watching this and I just sat through my first episode. I remember asking her if all of the female characters are brainless airheads who just happen to be good at one aspect of their jobs. They all seems pretty intolerable so far. Who would work with any of those women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I also like how she blamed the repeal of Glass-Steagal on Reagan. That was some awesome propaganda as you know there is crap ton of, and I use this word to indicate only the most extreme and dumb, libtards, repeating that at work today.

The whole interaction, from the incredibly, incredibly dumb woman getting tutored to the ridiculously simplistic Democratic talking points couched as economics from an "economics PhD" was just painful.


The Rudy moment was kind of neat though.
post #21 of 76
The ending was great.
post #22 of 76
She didn't, she blamed it on Clinton. I think you heard the part where she said deregulation started with Reagan, which it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I also like how she blamed the repeal of Glass-Steagal on Reagan. That was some awesome propaganda as you know there is crap ton of, and I use this word to indicate only the most extreme and dumb, libtards, repeating that at work today.
post #23 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenRose View Post

She didn't, she blamed it on Clinton. I think you heard the part where she said deregulation started with Reagan, which it did.

Mr. Rose, you have some mighty fine listening.

This week it was the who-wants-to-be-a-millionaire-in-India fella's opportunity to be especially annoying... and he hit for a 6.

Anyway, the only character I like is the blonde pony-tailed one w/ the big ta-tas who says nothing the conference room. Never pitches a story, never has an outburst... just the titty gal in a tight purple sweater.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Pity that Egyptian mob didn't beat Sam Waterson with a rock.
post #24 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenRose View Post

She didn't, she blamed it on Clinton. I think you heard the part where she said deregulation started with Reagan, which it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I also like how she blamed the repeal of Glass-Steagal on Reagan. That was some awesome propaganda as you know there is crap ton of, and I use this word to indicate only the most extreme and dumb, libtards, repeating that at work today.

She talked about something along the lines of "the philosophy of deregulation" that Reagan created and culminated in the repeal. It was quite clear that Reagan was the proximate cause of the repeal in her talking points memo.

The Rudy thing was cool. Also very funny was wanting to break union rules...while chasing after Scott Walker. laugh.gif

Oh, and more Sorkin dis-information. Citizens United was not about direct contributions to political candidates. And now a host of idiots think they have a nugget of info. I would have to say, to borrow from Colbert, the level of truthiness is high in this show. Oh, and where do we think Sorkin got the scene from, including what video clip to use? Straight of a Thinking Progress blog: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/10/137917/citizens-united-koch/?mobile=nc laugh.gif
post #25 of 76
It sounded more like she blamed Clinton. Really though you should be blaming James Leach and Phil Gramm who both spearheaded and introduced the bill to congress/senate, and even then the blame probably stems from whoever coerced them into it
Edited by Saturdays - 7/24/12 at 10:41am
post #26 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I have high hopes for this - what do you think?

I had high hopes too. But I don't like it. For one, it's like no newsroom I ever saw. For two, most of the journos are unbelievable, except for Thomas Sadoski as Don Keefer. He has just that right amount of petty little snark, eye on the main chance and sharp elbows, with some glimmer of ethics that characterizes a lot of journalists I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

The characters spent most of their time on screen trying to one-up each other.

You are on to something. IMO good films, plays, serials have one common characteristic that stands out for me - the characters talk to each other and listen. In this show, the characters seem to be all waiting almost impatiently for their turn to say something smart, or dramatic. I can't describe it better than that.
post #27 of 76
I've been wanting to give up on this show but I guess I'm hoping it gets better.

We're supposed to believe Mackenzie is the producer and runs the show but Sorkin takes every chance he can to make her seem clueless. Could someone this stupid really run a cable news show?

The Rudy moment was good, but that's a lot of checks to cash lol
post #28 of 76

So far I have been very disappointed in the show. I had high hopes, being a big fan of some of Sorkin's past work (sports night and the west wing, not so much studio 60). But the show has failed me in both the characters' writing and its political/sociological content. I suppose I am quite liberal but even I am bothered by the self-righteousness and condescending tone of the show. I keep watching because the show has its moments and I like some of the characters' interactions. But for a writer as talented as Sorkin, part of the writing is just incredibly poor. In particular the Maggie character makes me cringe at each of her scenes. They probably went for a light-headed but endearing and cute girl who manages to rise in her new position as the show progresses but I just cannot stand her. The acting and delivery is way over the top and the amount of silly situations she is constantly written into (hiding under the bed while bf cheats on her, slamming doors on people's faces, screwing her assignments...) annoys me. Apparently Sorkin fired the entire writing staff for season 2 , so maybe the show will take a new direction, hopefully for the better. In the meanwhile I will keep watching, crossing my fingers for some improvement.

post #29 of 76
Episode 5, the most recent, was so cliched and predictable as to be annoying. HBO shows are generally not predictable. The characters are more real- not cliches and caricatures. But, Newsroom, there's not a three diminutional character yet. They're all stock TV characters with no depth or unpredictability yet. Very disappointed. Luck had some really terrific characters and dialog. It didn't get ratings and then some horses died in production. This got reupped and hasn't had a consistently good episode yet. No horses are going to die, so it probably will last, but right now - very weak.
post #30 of 76
You guys clearly never watched Sports Night. This is like an exact blueprint of that show but with news reporting instead of sports.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › The Newsroom (HBO)