Author:

27 thoughts on “The Greater Fool – Why the newsroom is great!”

  • I met her at a part in Malibu 2 weekends ago as she is the spokesperson for the web site WAG, she is a beautiful, charming young woman who doesn't take herself too seriously….

  • ElGatoLoco698 says:

    Olivia Munn is the lynchpin to that show. If it weren't for her, the Newsroom wouldn't be nearly as great as it is.

  • will buckley says:

    Aaron Sorkin is articulate, insightful and gets people.  I had to laugh at the comment deriding the dialogue as overly polished.  With so little television around like Newsroom, one wonders why detractors would even waste our / their time here.

  • @Hellzyead"No one talks like these 'people.' " — maybe not in the backwoods trailer park you live in, but in the educated world many people talk like that

  • you can complain all the tv show,but it is better than soap operas,doctor,police detective tv show atleat to me. In my opinion it's good show with political opinion,we can sure debate about it atleast it brings out debate. It deserves better.

  • Alfred Marsh says:

    I've been long winded but I'm going to add a few more thoughts.  I mentioned HBO programming.  The Sopranos, True Blood, Game of Thrones, and Nurse Jackie, high quality programs, are all about bad people being bad to others including maiming, torturing, raping, and wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children.  Breaking Bad was the same.  The Network is about good smart people trying to do good things.  Sure they had flaws but the big picture was making a news program, and themselves, better for the good of the populace.  And Sorking had just a few weeks and a few minutes an hour to try to develop characters.  He didn't have 22 weeks per season.  In my opinion, he did it brilliantly. 

    I also appreciate that from time to time, Sorkin was self-deprecating.  In a season 3 episode, Maggie, in a short monologue, tells a fellow train passenger how she doesn't like monologues.  The passenger says that in telling him that she did a monologue.  She says, "Where I work we all do."

  • Alfred Marsh says:

    Hellzyread: what is your agenda?  "Sanctimonious horseshit"?  Why all the vitriol?  Why the anger?  You could just say, "Nah, don't like him" and back it up a little with some examples.  I have been critical of certain things in my life, but only about things I have background on and when I can offer a few facts to back up my point of view.  I just appreciate great, clever writing.  What is your basis for lashing out so much on talent very few on the planet, and certainly in TV and film, have?

    ¬†"… with a chewbone ready for each talking head to gnaw on as a reward. It's all a ball of synthetic whip-cracks and blueblood grandstanding that doesn't amount to anything except a bunch of whining circuitry."¬† With the metaphors, strange adjectives,¬†and, wow, talk about whining, it looks like you were trying to out-Sorkin Sorkin.¬† Are you a screenwriter?¬† Are you really a professional critic?¬† Are you trying to impress us with what you think is your gift for language?¬† Were¬†you trying to show what great, clever writing really is?¬† If¬†you do consider yourself a greater talent, so much so that you try to tear down one of the greatest screenwriters of the last twenty years just because you don't care for a series you had to go out of your way to watch, what have you done to warrant that position?¬†

    There is a great scene in the movie Birdman, in which Michael Keaton's character, visiting a local bar, confronts THE Broadway critic that can make or break a play in one night.  She flatly tells him, without seeing one scene, (not quoted) I don't like you or your play, you're a poseur not an actor or director, and I'm going to tear it apart, and you will be finished. 
    Is this your agenda Hellzyread? 

  • Alfred Marsh says:

    I am glad The Newsroom was on HBO because it would not have lasted one ten-show season on commercial TV.  Unfortunately, I don't think the current American public would have the patience and attention span to appreciate what he was doing, stylistically, artistically, and politically.  With a wealth of popular crime procedurals, reality shows of varying quality, and pure junk like the Housewives programs, a Sorkin series wouldn't stand a chance of surviving.  West Wing was a miracle to last as long as it did, but it was in the era before trash television became so popular.  (How many Americans are learning their history solely from Pawn Stars and American Pickers?)

    On HBO, the fans of Sorkin and his style of writing, so harshly criticized by Hellzyread, could access his brilliance in an unedited format.  One could watch, commercial free, whatever episodes desired On Demand, and if not agreeing with his political or cultural agenda, at least appreciate his dialog and humor.  Sorkin did not have to worry about "the numbers", just as the ACN team tried to avoid them. 

    I love this style of writing-I've been following it since the days of Paddy Chayefsky (see the movies The Hospital and Network).  (Yes I'm that old).  David E. Kelly used the same style in most all of his series, especially Ally McBeal and LA Law.  It challenges the senses and the brain.  It's smart writing for characters who in their professions have to be smart.  True, it's not realistic, but my God is it fascinating and captivating.  And we would expect smart characters in jobs that require intelligence not to speak like the characters on Two and a Half Men.  The mix of the cultural references, whacky humor, situation comedy, puns, political editorializing, quick edits, and clever monologues were brilliant, but they are for a particular audience.  HBO historically has attracted intelligent, patient viewers who don't mind going out of their way to see thoughtful, challenging programming.  The Sopranos, Nurse Jackie, Band of Brothers, John Adams, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and all the others have required patience, thinking, and a good attention span for the audience to "get it."  Perfect for Sorkin.

    I loved the after-program comments on the On Demand airings in which Sorkin describes how and why he did what he did, and wrote what he wrote in each episode.  They are insightful and are a must for those who may be confused by or frustrated with what he did.  At least you will get the reason for the scenes in each episode, and you will get a sense that everything was thoughtfully planned, and events depicted pretty thoroughly researched.  It was enlightening to learn the background of the idea for the Genoa operation, and that Sloan's on-the-air torching of the newbie techie and his star-sighting app, late in season 3, were based on real events.  Sorkin states that the dialog for Sloan and the techie was taken almost word for word from the actual broadcast that took place on a news network.  I love that stuff.  You can't fault Sorkin for trying to be as accurate as possible. 

    Sorkin was trying to show that news can and should have the focus of educating the populace, not scaring it.  And, that the persons who we elect to run our cities, states, and the country, and the programmers who give us the news, should be held accountable for flat out lying to us.  He preached decency, not deception.  I think that was a very noble goal, and his efforts were marvelous.

    I will miss Newsroom terribly.  I will miss Will McAvoy and Mac, but mostly I will miss one of the most captivating characters in recent television, Sloan Sabbith, so wonderfully acted by Olivia Munn.  I am sad that I won't get to see how Sorkin would have the Newsroom team handle recent events such as the beheadings of the journalists, and the protests over police actions.  Agree or disagree with his views, it would have been fascinating television.

    In the meantime, I will watch again Social Network and Moneyball, old episodes of West Wing, and I eagerly await his biopic on Steve Jobs.

  • I love the Newsroom. I love clever dialogue; and, rather than it being sanctimonious, the script is (I strongly feel) idealistic. I have been a reporter and reported on crises, and I have worked for national government (including under crisis circumstances) and the intergovernmental process. I LOVE this show because it's passionate, idealistic and clever; it's sort of a fantasy newsroom where journalism was a calling and journalists stood for something, and held authority to account, performed their role as the fourth estate, and there IS realism in it. It's chicken soup for the jaded journalistic soul.¬†

  • Hrmmm. I really enjoyed the first season of Newsroom. The second wasn't quite what I'd hoped for. The third is shaping up pretty decently imo.

    The dialogue is always what sets a Sorkin show aside from other similar shows on television.

    The show isn't perfect. It plays to a lot of dogma and classic idiosyncrasies that I find annoying, yet…. I still love the rapid fire give n' go that credits the audience with the possession of not only a brain, but the intellect to grasp the vague references and sub text.

    It's a soap opera for people with an IQ over 100. It isn't water into wine. Lighten up.

  • Hunter Phillips says:

    to Hellzyead's comment. I found it very relieving to see someone articulate exactly how i often feel about television/ film nowadays. "heavily polished dialogue" is usually the culprit, Ben Afleck's Gone Girl was a recent disappointment. too many perfect looking people who happen to be incredibly eloquent all the time, it forces me back in my chair reminding me im watching an act rather than getting lost in the story. to be fair, it can be effective like in a Tarantino flick, but i would say thats due to having a particular style. the mini speeches are hilarious too, its also why i gave up on this show

  • Is it just me or is it that the only good performances she ever had were when she works beside Kevin pereira?

  • This clip is a prime cross-section defining why the show did not last. No one talks like these "people." It all displays a stark polarization between a heavily polished script "reality" (fueled mostly by dialogue delivered with the same frenetic pace and emotion of a ticker tape machine rattling off numbers) and a genuine, organic environment where characters are actually pumping blood through their veins and not trying to compete in rapid-fire word vomit like they're all slaves hellbent on impressing the writer over the fact they memorized all the sanctimonious horseshit he wrote. I wouldn't be surprised if Sorkin had been standing off-screen with a chewbone ready for each talking head to gnaw on as a reward. It's all a ball of synthetic whip-cracks and blueblood grandstanding that doesn't amount to anything except a bunch of whining circuitry. The gears grind off their axis and the screws are stripped bare. A meet-cute here. A speech there. Soap-opera boredom everywhere. Pseudo-intellectual garbage that poses the important question: "Can a newsroom filled with waspy, whiny douchebags tackle the serious issues of the day without a corporate backlash while trying to fuck one another (and pose as pioneers of journalism) on differing levels of timidity?" Yep….That's why you only get 3 seasons ¬† …….. ¬† However, I do like the hell out of Sorkin's "The Social Network" and "Moneyball."

  • Many of you now say you want to become a greater fool, but take absolutely no risk of becoming one. Nobody cares about empty words.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *