|
Bown posted:I want to know what BJ Novak's possible answer could have been for what a personalised soft drink is that begins with "it's a millennial-" before Leona cuts him off. "It's a millennial thing. They all want their own personalized existence that is only about them. Like facebook, twitter, it's all about their ideas, and applauding them for those ideas."
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Was this the finale? If so it was weak, but I thought the season as a whole gained enough strength to almost justify one more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Finale was weak, but gently caress it. I kinda liked this show a lot. It had ups, it had downs...but it had snark. And I love snark. I would like this show to be remade, but more realistic. Or a documentary. I love the idea to pieces, and it would be better with no story. Just real life people dealing with real issues in a newsroom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
A great show and I'm sad to see it gone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:I don't get this mentality. It was a character saying that, not Aaron Sorkin. And on top of that, when Will says it, we're all supposed to understand that he's wrong and appreciate how far he's come since Mac and Neal and the rest showed him the light. Everything anyone says but especially the lead male writer on (show name here) is what Aaron Sorkin says.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Crusty Nutsack posted:Didn't he usually wear a bow tie? Either way, I figured there was going to be some special story flashback reveal about its significance (beyond just his tie...) like other things in the episode. They made it seem to have more weight than just "his tie." I figured I was forgetting something. It was a bow tie. They look pretty much the same as ties except the ends are different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
I like how they made the cleaning lady look like an idiot or an immigrant with a limited understanding of english -.-
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
I will not miss this show. I didnt hate it but i won't miss it
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:I don't get this mentality. It was a character saying that, not Aaron Sorkin. And on top of that, when Will says it, we're all supposed to understand that he's wrong and appreciate how far he's come since Mac and Neal and the rest showed him the light. With other show runners and creators, you might be right. In the case of Aaron Sorkin, anything being said by the main cast is something that he believes. He essentially creates propaganda for his own beliefs with every show he does. I agree with you that I thought "what the gently caress" when Will said that in the flashback, but I would make many bets on the fact that Aaron Sorkin really thinks that's the case now and that the audience would believe, but that there are ways we can make the internet better. Probably with some sort of Neal person. Also Jim is still a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:I don't get this mentality. It was a character saying that, not Aaron Sorkin. And on top of that, when Will says it, we're all supposed to understand that he's wrong and appreciate how far he's come since Mac and Neal and the rest showed him the light. because goons
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
But how can he believe it when he only had a fictional character say it? I mean that motherfucker isn't even real so explain THAT to me
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
Here's a pretty balanced overall review that largely sums up my feelings about the show:quote:
Full: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/14/the-newsroom-ended-as-it-began-noble-controversial-and-weird.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Ha ha ha, this piece of poo poo is going in the bin with Studio 60, only to be remembered when someone asks "Why the gently caress do they keep letting Aaron Sorkin write tv shows?". It will never, ever, ever be remembered as great on any level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Ha ha ha, this piece of poo poo is going in the bin with Studio 60, only to be remembered when someone asks "Why the gently caress do they keep letting Aaron Sorkin write tv shows?". It will never, ever, ever be remembered as great on any level. Hmm. We disagree. About Studio 60 and this. Both were great shows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:Hmm. We disagree. About Studio 60 and this. Both were great shows. Aaron Sorkin does best when he is making work that deals with abstract or large issues, and how they should be addressed. Some of the best of West Wing has characters dealing with larger political issues that he doesn't have a particular chip on his shoulder about. The problem with this show (and Studio 60) is that Sorkin has a huge chip on his shoulder about the news and the internet, and he wants you to know about it. That fat nerd making a list about the top 9 overrated films? He's pretty much the same personification of the internet that the Trek Nerd was on West Wing. Both get lectured at by one of the other characters. I try to like his work, because when Sorkin works (and isn't spouting really terrible things about women) he makes good TV. I wonder what this show would have been if he had just gone full throttle towards the Newsroom universe reporting on made up stories, instead of trying to use real life examples of how the news should be operating. It probably would have been better, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
You're missing the point. "The 9 Most Overrated Films of All Time" is clickbait trash and something a news organization shouldn't do. The fact that the list only goes back to 1999 is the poo poo sandwich on top.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:To be fair, making a list of the 9 most overrated films on a news website that only goes back to 1999 and call the list "of all time" is objectively trash. Oh yeah, he is right to be mad about it because it's trash. But his presentation is just . . . so obnoxious. Like, of course he wrote a character to be everything he hates about the internet just so he can have his hero character come back at the right moment to lecture him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Was this the finale? If so it was weak, but I thought the season as a whole gained enough strength to almost justify one more. I think the season made it pretty difficult to create any sort of big walk-off moment. It thought it was a nice finale that was handled well, though. This was almost Newsroom: The Movie, in the way that HBO make Hello Ladies: The Movie to wrap up all of the threads that the tv show didn't have time to tie off and give you some deeper dives into characters in ways that they couldn't get to. I think it was a good choice to focus a lot of the episode on how the characters got here and that a lot of their connections go back to before they all got together. There weren't any horrible moments like with the rape discussion scene in the previous week. It gave us a pretty clear picture that they are going to going back to focusing on the mission Charlie was on when he re-arranged the news cast in the first place. Now that I've calmed down after last week's episode, I think I'm with you that I would watch another season. Probably because I'm a gullible idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
My favorite part was when Neal came riding in and shames his co workers for talking about movies and crap on the website and then they were all youre right we should write an article about how bigfoot is real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Max posted:Oh yeah, he is right to be mad about it because it's trash. But his presentation is just . . . so obnoxious. Like, of course he wrote a character to be everything he hates about the internet just so he can have his hero character come back at the right moment to lecture him. Didn't M Night Shyamalan do this in one of his movies? I swear I remember hearing something about a movie critic's doppelganger getting either killed in the movie or proven wrong by M Night's own self-insert character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Didn't M Night Shyamalan do this in one of his movies? I swear I remember hearing something about a movie critic's doppelganger getting either killed in the movie or proven wrong by M Night's own self-insert character. The famous example I know of was a Siskel and Ebert stand in in the first American version of Godzilla. Ebert said it was a failure of an insert because why put them in if they aren't going to be stomped on by Godzilla?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
The Lemon-Lyman episode from the West Wing is because Television Without Pity made fun of Sorkin on a forum, from memory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
The Newsroom is the best show I haven't watched. I'm already familiar with how terrible Sorkin can be, since I've seen most of Studio 60. So seeing him channel his meltdowns through his show; people calling him out on it; but then dudebros go "But he has a point!" has been a reliable source of entertainment since this show popped up on TV in the first place. Please continue writing TV shows, Aaron. How about one about a fictional fake news satirist that's totally not Jon Stewart or Colbert or Oliver? Don't discourage yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Was Sorkin trying to predict that the Newsroom would be "underrated" or something with this last Neil rant? Nobody reading those "top 10 of "whatever is brain dead enough to thing it is actual unquestionable fact, and most of them don't even do "of all time" because its easier to just do "modern remake/of the decade/films with X actor/fire based sfx etc" This show will be forever known as just another barely decent HBO show people watched because the good shows weren't currently airing. Jeff Daniel's emmy win will be the sole high point of this entire mess, and the next closest "high" point is probably Olivia Munn's acting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Jeff Daniel's Emmy win will probably be brought up in a "Man, Jon Hamm got hosed there" sense alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
I saw a review that said this season in particular seemed so focused on the internet because Sorkin felt it was this generations fault for the show not doing as well as he thinks it should have. That is totally unsubstantiated but I do believe he would make a whole season essentially say "Well, I guess you all hate me."Boogaleeboo posted:Jeff Daniel's Emmy win will probably be brought up in a "Man, Jon Hamm got hosed there" sense alone. I feel for Jon Hamm. He came up around the same time as Cranston, so he got locked out of the win for most of that time (even though Jeff Daniel's win interrupted that win streak.) Now he has to contend with Spacey and others for the same category for all the work he's done on Mad Men. Max fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqqel8-Beog
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Old man yells at cloud: The Show
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
gently caress that movie had a good score.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
If Thomas Sadoski gets more TV and film work, this all will have been worth it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Everything was a freaking ham fished monologue but it was a pretty good show overall. But man jim is a piece of crap who is touted as a hero. That's just sad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
So can we get a Don & Sloan spinoff now which Sorkin has nothing to do with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Did they ever explain why Sloan wasn't fired? I know there was some magical nonsense where Charlie was the only one who could fire people, but after he died why wouldn't the new boss follow through and can her? Also, why are we supposed to believe that Neil would be welcomed back if the new boss really likes the new web site and apps? The musical number felt like peek Sorkin; a musical reference that only 'cultured' people will appreciate, a teenager speaking in a way that no teenager does, everyone comes together to support and cheer on the Great Man. It would have been too much if Will was able to set his ego aside and let the kid take the lead. Nope, the older generation has to hang on and preach to the end. Oh well, I will probably watch the next Sorkin show as I have seen all the rest for better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Acinonyx posted:Did they ever explain why Sloan wasn't fired? I know there was some magical nonsense where Charlie was the only one who could fire people, but after he died why wouldn't the new boss follow through and can her? Also, why are we supposed to believe that Neil would be welcomed back if the new boss really likes the new web site and apps? Did you actually watch the last episode at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
I had no idea Sorkin was responsible for the screenplay of The Social Network. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I had no idea Sorkin was responsible for the screenplay of The Social Network.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
What I dont get about the mission that everyone at ACN is on, is why do they think caring about ratings is the worst thing EVER. Shouldn't you try to find a way to produce news in a way that it conforms with your moral standards while at the same time reaching as many people as possible? The show treats it almost as an badge of honor if the ratings are low, because that means you are on the right path. And whats up with the resolution of the "I'm going to fire everyone" plot. BJ Novak's character was so badly written, he looked like a little boy who needed to be tought a lesson by Jane Fonda how to deal with a "scandal" and I dont get why promoting a woman suddenly solves all his problems especially as noone cares about the executives of a cable news network.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I had no idea Sorkin was responsible for the screenplay of The Social Network. He wasn't, really; fincher heavily rewrote it and removed a whole bunch of elements of the film
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here as a perfect follow up to The Newsroom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Toxxupation posted:He wasn't, really; fincher heavily rewrote it and removed a whole bunch of elements of the film That would explain why it feels more, let's say, sparse than typical Sorkin fare. Where can I read more about this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 21:01
|
|