This is a continuation of another thread "The Sorkin Walk 'n Talk™ returns to TV! (probably)", but the show had no name at the time.
Jane Fonda brings even more headlines to Aaron Sorkin's Newsroom
Now, the drama set behind the scenes of a nightly news bulletin not dissmilar to Keith Olbermann's Countdown has secured the services of one Jane Fonda in her first TV role. Fonda, pleasingly, will play a character not a million miles from her ex-husband, the father of cable news Ted Turner. "Leona Lansing, the CEO of the cable news network's parent company whose ideals often clash with the news outlet".
Holy crap, I can't wait for this. The West Wing in a newsroom + cussing and sex? Yes, please!
Jane Fonda's an interesting choice. I have to say I'm not over the moon about the rest of the cast. Other than Sam Waterston, who usually brings a certain amount of gravitas to his roles. Olivia Munn, though? Really?
Yeah, it would have been nice to see some familiar faces from the his old shows...
New trailer up, still can't wait:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=wC8ovJYAU3U
Yay! More Sorkin indulging Sorkin.
The bit I'm most looking forward to is the drugs and sex ruining a writer's obvious talent.
(I'm still bitter from the second half of Studio 60.)
This may be the salve that heals the wounds left by West Wing's departue.
Couple of lines and situations in there that were lifted straight out of the West Wing. Sorkin does seem to repeat himself a lot.
Still can't wait!
There is now a "screener" floating around the internet that has been "leaked." (I use quotes as this appears to be a strategy these days to promote the show in the online community).
I'm 10 minutes into it, and I've been elated, inspired; I've laughed, got a little misty eyed, and I've settled in for what appears to be a fantastic hour of entertainment.
AWESOME! SO excited for this, like, silly excited.
Yeah, just finished downloading. Kind of afraid to start it in case it disappoints.
By the by, Jeff Daniels was on Fresh Air today: http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155426...f-the-newsroom
I was worried I'd built it up too much in my head, but it beat my expectations like they were the smelly redheaded kid at recess.
Holy moly, what a show...
Well, I've only made it through the cold open, but I've watched it three times. Holy crap this is gonna be good.
The catch with this show, and it will start to drive home after the pilot, is that setting it only two years back was kind of a terrible move. Sorkin has always been unafraid to just flop his politics out there on the table all pink and naked, but in this case, according to Dan Fienberg and Alan Seppinwall, it's kind of offensive how he creates his perfect characters who somehow magically divine six months of reporting the very night that news breaks when the events in question are recent enough to kind of remember the whole thing. It's smug, and if smug bothers you, there's a considerable chance you might have a problem with this show. Smug bothers me, so there's a considerable chance I might have a problem with this show.
Are you going to watch it anyway?Originally Posted by Brian Seiler
For a while. At least the pilot. It's possible Dan is insane, but he's usually on the level.
I expect a certain level of smugness from a Sorkin project but I am interested all the same. My wife is pretty much a super fan too, so that settles that.
Yeah, me too. Besides, there's a thin line between smart and smug. And smart is awfully hard to come by.
Grantland weighs in, and it's not pretty.
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollyw...ins-toxic-mess
Yeah, I have to say I was a bit unenthused by the pilot. The idea of setting the show in the recent past so that the main guy can be magically prescient about everything is about the dumbest idea ever.
And I think that guy is dead-on about Sorkin's misogynistic tendencies. It's always been there in his shows (where the women exist mostly to applaud the quiet heroics of the male characters), but it's really obvious here.
Just watched it.
1. The two-year old news topics comes off as more than a bit pretentious. Yeah, it's easy knowing what's important after the fact. And everyone seems magically smart about everything. But I also sort of see Sorkin's POV, which is that the show is sort of an after-action report of how the story should have been covered. But I think that's a nuance that's easily lost.
2. Loved the Cold Open, although it does remind quite a bit of Studio 60.
3. Love, love, love (in a "I want to do all sorts of things with her" way) Emily Mortimer.
4. Love, love, love (in a much more platonic way) Sam Waterson.
5. The 20-something worker bees are trademark Sorkin. They're all interchangeable. I'm waiting for them to start busting out Gilbert and Sullivan references.
6. The opening credits hammer you over the head a bit too much. Murrow and Cronkite set to a Thomas Newman score. Yeah, we get it. This is supposed to be "serious." But it's the most conventional and totally forgettable opening credits/score to an HBO show maybe ever.
p.s. Jesse Eisenberg supposedly did a cameo as the rookie regulator on the phone.
Last edited by Woolen Horde; 06-24-2012 at 10:58 PM.
It's a perfectly okay show so far, but people need to not fool themselves. It's about as realistic and deep as a summer explosion movie. The only difference is that the viscerally satisfying but fake explosions are generally rhetorical.
It's typical Sorkin and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it, but it's not... it's candy. It's as much candy as True Blood is candy, it's just that it gives liberal newsjunkie porn rather than literal boobs and abs.
Didn't really follow this in previews other than knowing it was a Sorkin joint. I liked it. I actually thought the reveal of the date midway through the show was a decent twist.
I can see how the conceit of being set two years ago so everyone can seem super-smart may get grating after a while, but I listened to an interview in which the producers were talking about how that will swing the other way in some episodes. They're going to be spectacularly wrong about some stories as well and the audience will know that.
I'll watch it.
I thought it was great, especially have a shitty True Blood episode.
Just watched the pilot and since I don't subscribe to HBO, I probably won't be able to keep up with it. I liked it overall, I think Emily Mortimer and (not pictured) Olivia Munn are both stunning and the former was great in the pilot. Jeff Daniels went over the top a number of times but I blame that more on Sorkin.
Overall, I find that I really like Sorkin's structure, I feel like it all fits well together, culminating into some great moments (like Perry and Whitford doing the walk and talk at the very end of the Studio 60 pilot and ending up on stage in front of the show's crew... assuming I remember that right).
But I really dislike Sorkin's moment to moment Sorkin-esque dialogue. It always feels so forced and takes me out of the scene faster than if a boom mike dropped into frame.
Really enjoyed it, especially the way they conveniently delayed the date caption until the audience realizes that it was the day of the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Also loved Sam Waterson's "I'm a marine! I will beat the shit out of you no matter how many protein bars you eat!" line.
A part of me kept picking at the notion of "the one little guy who everyone ignored got the disaster before everyone else" but... we'll see how it holds up.
(I've never seen West Wing or Studio 60)
I'm thinking the reason they set it two years in the past is so viewers will already be familiar with the events that are being covered and will be able to better follow the process of generating the news. If the characters on the show are going to be wrong as well as right, that's a pretty interesting vantage point for the audience.
I think this is gonna be one of those shows I'm annoyed at myself for liking.
"No one's thoughts and prayers are with the fire."
The simple practical advantage of setting it two years in the past means they don't have to constantly make up fake news stories every episode.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote