The Newsroom - Season 1 thread [edited title]

[FlightlessBird]

Other cable news shows pander to someone, whether it's the right or the left. The 'new format' pretends to pander to the electorate who aren't businesses or congresspersons.
Plus they are also very critical of commentary as news and they want to do 'The News'.

I like the show very much. I'd like to see more life than news, but I think the point is that life happens when you're working. I can accept that, especially on a tv show.

[Marley23]

There were four or five good quips in that episode and there were about two minutes of interesting conversation between Leona and Charlie (one of the good quips was something like "TV networks have a unique ability to inform the national discourse!"/"I know. That's why I bought one."), but other than that I think I hated every single second of that hour of TV. How does someone get the kind of credit Sorkin does for being a brilliant writer - and The Social Network really was outstanding - and then trot out almost every single cliche you can use in a single episode of TV show except "we're trapped in an elevator and she's having contractions!" The entire conceit of calling Charlie into the CEO's office and not explain why he was there for an hour while she silently sits there being threatening? What the hell was that? What company is run that way? How did Mac get to be a great producer when she is so hopelessly unprofessional she needs to yell at Will about his dating habits every day? How does Maggie suffer from panic attacks and have no idea how to cope with them unless some Nice Guy is there to talk her through the attack? How is Jim's behavior with Maggie supposed to come off as sweet or anything other than cliche (as romantic drama) and completely moronic (as the behavior of an adult human being)? Why could they not come up with a plan to fix the news other than Have Will Be Awesome, and by "Be Awesome" we mean act like a moderate version of Keith Olbermann? I love Sam Waterston, but why is it supposed to be endearing that Charlie is a drunk who is constantly threatening to punch his coworkers?

And why the hell is this show so unbearably patronizing toward women and so unaccepting of their professionalism? Journalism schools turn out more female graduates than male, for fuck's sake! So far the brilliant work here is all being done by Will and Charlie, and Mac's contribution is to dotingly have Will be great. The only other competent act of journalism from a woman so far was Sloan's deficit ceiling question, and nobody answered it. Other than that, Maggie gets mad at Will for dating beautiful women and Maggie is stuck in an annoying relationship drama while advising Will about his. Is it going to go on like this?

[hajario]

That was well said, Marley. I did like the CEO's delivery with the golf joke as well.

After an evening's reflection, I am going to give this show one more episode. If it doesn't compel me by then, it's off the DVR.

[Typo Negative]

I keep wanting to punch Don.

"I could of done the kind of show Mac is doing.....whaaaa!" But you quit to do another show. Suck it up.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

But it's a cable news show. In the real world such shows involve news commentary as with the shows on Fox or MSNBC.

Poetic license? Makes for better TV, I guess.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

But it's a cable news show. In the real world such shows involve news commentary as with the shows on Fox or MSNBC.

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Poetic license? Makes for better TV, I guess.

It's not that they were doing commentary, it's that they kept doing stories that showed the Tea Party candidates were morons - they used the easiest and most prominent real-world target in Sharron Angle, who really is an ignorant dingbat - and that the Tea Party was being funded by the Koch brothers, which undercut the belief that it's an Authentic Grassroots Movement^TM and so on. Now those candidates have power and Leona does not want to piss them off because they could take it out on her corporate empire. It occurs to me that it is a little weird that The Newsroom is about doing a better news show, but since it's set in the real world past, nothing they do is going to make a significant difference in the broader world. They did a lot of stories informing the public about the Tea Party, but the Republicans still swept to a big win in November 2010.

In the reviews to this point, everybody has said the upcoming episode is just a maudlin trainwreck, and if it's worse than last night's episode I may strangle my DVR. However it sounds like it is actually about a real, very difficult journalistic issue. I guess I'll spoiler it even though it's about something that really happened in the recent past and we all know what happened-

SPOILER:

They'll be covering the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and all those people in Tucson. Specifically it sounds like they'll have to decide whether or not they are going to report that Giffords had died, as several news outlets incorrectly did that day.

[Taomist]

I'm only 20 minutes into the third show and I want to punch Mac OUT. Just...tie her down and give her anti-estrogen meds until she stops acting like an overly hormonal, tween-aged TWIT.
I want to like her, and I do, until she starts acting like this. Then I just want to stop watching and post about how awful this is. The writers should be shot.

[Taomist]

On the plus side, I *really* like Jeff Daniels in this. I get him mixed up with several other actors, but in this...yeah. I really like him. I'll remember him for this

[Typo Negative]

I would prefer the News Night broadcast to the behind-the-scenes stuff. Looks like a news show I would get in to.

[Zjestika]

Originally Posted by Marley23

And why the hell is this show so unbearably patronizing toward women and so unaccepting of their professionalism? Journalism schools turn out more female graduates than male, for fuck's sake! So far the brilliant work here is all being done by Will and Charlie, and Mac's contribution is to dotingly have Will be great. The only other competent act of journalism from a woman so far was Sloan's deficit ceiling question, and nobody answered it. Other than that, Maggie gets mad at Will for dating beautiful women and Maggie is stuck in an annoying relationship drama while advising Will about his. Is it going to go on like this?

Yes. Sorkin shows are always like that with women. The West Wing would crack me up because the women would march around shouting what school they went to and what their GPA was, but men never, ever had to announce their credentials. Sorkin simply cannot write women. The best he can do it write them as if they were men, you know, competent at their jobs and stuff, like CJ Craig on The West Wing. Otherwise they're blithering, baffling idiots who exist to be impressed with and flustered by men.

Also, can you believe that Maggie's friend was on the phone the whole time listening to the long conversation between Maggie and Jim? Because women have nothing better to do than strain to hear a conversation between their roommate and her co-worker. Women!

There was a point where Jim and Punjab totally broke the 4th wall and looked right at me. Freaked me the fuck out! And where was Jim to get the Gypsy reference?

[Bryan Ekers]

I like the Olbermannish speeches, I admit, though the show's smugness of hindsight annoys me (we know now that the Times Square bomber was a one-off nutcase - this was rather less clear at the time).


As for the interpersonal "drama".... fuck it, couldn't care less, it's getting in the way.

[drastic_quench]

This episode sealed it. I will watch this. The criticisms don't resonate with me. This show is a cut above 90% of everything else airing currently.

[standingwave]

Originally Posted by Zjestika

Yes. Sorkin shows are always like that with women.

Over/under on the episode # in which Mac misplaces her panties? (Fans of the West Wing and/or Sports Night know what I'm talking about.)

[Bryan Ekers]

The framing device with the company chairwoman and president kinda reminds me of Studio 60's recurring characters of network president and chairman (Amanda Peet and Steven Weber, respectively), who seemed to take an awful lot of interest in the antics of the central characters, even though they represented at most 1% of a network president's responsibilities and 0.1% of a chairman's.

It's somewhat interesting that they got Jane Fonda in that role (until the closing credits, I was thinking "huh, this woman sure reminds me of Jane Fonda - I guess they're imitating her on purpose as a reference to Ted Turner...") but I gotta figure if a corporate chairwoman found that one part of 3% of her domain was getting annoying, she would crush it with a wave of her well-manicured hand and not waste time getting shouted down by fogies who tell her son to "get the fuck out." She doesn't have to make threats ("He's gonna tone it down, or I'm gonna fire him.") - she can flatly say "Do as I tell you or get out."

The dramatic musical sting when she first says "I'll fire him, Charlie" made me chuckle, as though this concept was so utterly shocking and unexpected to Waterston's character ("What?!") that it takes him aback. Well, duh, fella - you must have known this was a possibility, if you weren't an idiot.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Zjestika

Yes. Sorkin shows are always like that with women.

Well, so far Olivia Munn's character seems to have her shit together.


No doubt she'll be shot by a deranged Tea Party nut in the first-season cliffhanger.

[Wheelz]

It wasn't perfect, but I actually enjoyed this episode quite a lot more than the previous one. I liked the way the story was told -- oddly, the framing device and the time-shifting made for a more cohesive narrative than last week's more linear story line, IMO.

I liked Will a lot here. Confident and cocky works better on him than angry and fumbling. And I'm getting on board with the whole "fantasy newscast" sort of aspect. It's fun to watch, even though it's very far removed from what any real news show would ever do.

Hey, Sports Night fans, did you recognize Ted McGinley as Gordon? Oh, wait, that wasn't Ted McGinley, was it? But apparently Mac is dating the same bland pretty-boy stereotype that Dana was. How long before he starts resenting her work hours and her obsession with Will? Or maybe he'll sleep with Olivia Munn.

Finally, I can see no reason for Jim wanting to go out with Maggie other than because the script says so. The girl is a train wreck, and there really isn't a spark there. Natalie and Jeremy had a spark. I don't feel it here.

Still, a much better episode. They're 2-for-3 by my scorecard, so I'm hopeful it will continue to improve.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I've only watched through the second episode so far--- and I'm somewhat relieved to see I won't be threadshitting when I say I've found the show disappointing and not particularly captivating so far.

I don't think I've ever seen any of Sorkin's TV work, although I did see The Social Network, which wasn't bad. A lot of the dialogue in this, particularly the second episode, sounded very "scripty" to me. hajario said it nicely upthread, that (paraphrasing) there's a distracting sameness to the lines, which makes it sound unfortunately like what it is: a bunch of actors all speaking in the same voice, which in something as talky as this, begins to grate after a while.

I like the energy when Will is on air, but the rest of it has been falling flat. Also, not sure if this has been mentioned, but the language seems oddly sanitized for a pay cable show--- I'm hearing "freaking" and that people think Will is an "ass." I never hear "ass" (as an obvious euphemism for "asshole") except on network TV, applied to say, Gregory House, when clearly he screams to be referred to as an asshole. Was this originally filmed as a network TV series, or are they just keeping it clean-ish so it won't require any modification when it airs in re-runs?

[Marley23]

This was always an HBO production, and I hadn't thought about it, but yes, there is surprisingly little profanity considering the pressure these people are under. Sam Waterston's character did tell Jane Fonda's weenie son to fuck off at the end of the last episode. Maybe that's just the style they want. They probably won't do as much compulsory Sopranos-style nudity either.

[Zjestika]

Originally Posted by Marley23

They probably won't do as much compulsory Sopranos-style nudity either.

Or Game of Thrones-style sexposition.

[Bryan Ekers]

So, was anybody covering the 2010 midterm elections thinking about the historically pro forma debt-ceiling vote just a few months off? Seems pretty prescient of a pair of reporters to raise the issue and grasp its potential significance on the night of the election. What's next, at a staff meeting in late April 2011, Will says "Let's leave a block of time open on May 2 - my reporter's instincts are telling me something important is going to happen."

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

So, was anybody covering the 2010 midterm elections thinking about the historically pro forma debt-ceiling vote just a few months off?

I doubt it.

[jsc1953]

On the one hand, I'm enjoying the series, and I thought this week's was the best of the 3 so far.

On the other, Sorkin is getting dramatic mileage out of the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. In other words, he's cheating.

It bothers me, but not enough to turn me off completely.

[MsWhatsit]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

On the one hand, I'm enjoying the series, and I thought this week's was the best of the 3 so far.

On the other, Sorkin is getting dramatic mileage out of the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. In other words, he's cheating.

It bothers me, but not enough to turn me off completely.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel.

I was really teetering on the brink, after the first two episodes. If the third one had also sucked, I'm not sure I would have continued. But the third episode was actually pretty damn good. Not great, and definitely with its flaws (which Marley pointed out quite nicely), but I'm sold. For now, anyway.

[Enderw24]

You know, there's a news analyst who has spoken about the takeover of the Republican Party. Who has looked at Sharron Angles "2nd Amendment remedies" while it was happening, continually and consistently linked the Tea Party movement to Americans for Prosperity to the Koch brothers and downplayed the Times Square incident as security gone right.
Her name's Rachel Maddow.
As a bonus, she didn't used to sleep with her producer making for unnecessary drama in the workplace.

Oh and the network owner? I totally thought that was Judith Light from Who's the Boss.

[Mtgman]

It's coming across as liberal porn at the moment. Between the cherry picking of tempestuous events with the benefit of hindsight and the lecturing/crusading for a "middle" of the US political spectrum(which doesn't really exist) which is indistinguishable from the modern left, meh.

The actual journalist who reviewed it, from NPR, feels pretty much like I do. It's certainly nice to hear your own biases come out with Aaron Sorkin punchy dialog. But after spending two and a half years working in a broadcast newsroom(multiple Murrow-award winning news radio) I don't see much resemblance. It's the Glee of journalism. Beautiful, intelligent, witty, and yet super messed up people, with the best sources on the planet, putting together mega-scoops of exactly the most important news of the year in real-time as the stories break. And it's all wrapped up in the delusion that they're Frontline.

I'm picturing a "road to Damascus" moment for the network owner and she'll back Watterson's character because the world needs this "honest" journalism. It would be more plausible if she decides this "socially responsible angle might bring in sponsors who want some greenwashing points." What we'll see for the rest of the season is DailyKOS's greatest hits in television form. This might be entertaining, but it's not Frontline. Frontline is journalism. Nova is science journalism. I'm not sure what we're seeing the genesis of here is going to be, but it's certainly leaning towards a ridiculous portrayal of the real news business.

On a personal note, Sorkin, Brigadoon references? Sardi's after an opening when the Times publishes a review? Jesus, get a consultant to tell you what normal people talk about or something, this just makes you look ridiculously out of touch.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

And it's all wrapped up in the delusion that they're Frontline.

Frontline? I thought they were Dateline, tops, and even that's a stretch. I didn't see any indication in the fictional News Night that they cut away for multipart mini-documentaries ("Here's Jimmy, a bright young kid. Here's Jimmy graduating from high school with honors. Here's Jimmy's applying for college. We'll tell you why Jimmy was set on fire by the Dean of Admissions after the break."), but rather it's an hour of Will McAvoy interviewing people and speechifying, with Olivia Munn doing... I dunno, two-minute financial summaries? Her own occasional interviews? Sexier raven-haired form-fitting business-wear speechifying?

Frontline has no studio to speak of, except maybe the sound stage where Will Lyman records his oh-so-smooth narration. Unless I'm wildly mistaken, there isn't a team of co-producers dragging in numbers and interview questions while the show is actually being broadcasting - the work happens weeks earlier in editing suites where the producers pull together extended interview footage, footage that has no McAvoy equivalent trying to "hard-hit" the subject.

Seriously, I want a Will Lyman ringtone: "...but an urgent message came in from the Pentagon that the attack had begun...."

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

I'm not sure what we're seeing the genesis of here is going to be, but it's certainly leaning towards a ridiculous portrayal of the real news business.

I'd be alright with it being ridiculous if there wasn't so much stupidity and smugness.

On a personal note, Sorkin, Brigadoon references?

Yeah. It's a big honking reminder that Aaron Sorkin is significantly older than these characters and that his background is in musical theater and not journalism. None of it means he can't write about journalism, but having youngish journalists explain themselves with references to Brigadoon and Gypsy is ridiculous and almost makes it sound like the writer is not that interested in the actual subject matter of journalism. (This is becoming a problem with the show.) Maybe he should've just done a show about musical theater- all the characters could be liberal idealists and it wouldn't sound weird when they explained their feelings with musical theater references.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Frontline? I thought they were Dateline, tops, and even that's a stretch. I didn't see any indication in the fictional News Night that they cut away for multipart mini-documentaries ("Here's Jimmy, a bright young kid. Here's Jimmy graduating from high school with honors. Here's Jimmy's applying for college. We'll tell you why Jimmy was set on fire by the Dean of Admissions after the break."), but rather it's an hour of Will McAvoy interviewing people and speechifying, with Olivia Munn doing... I dunno, two-minute financial summaries? Her own occasional interviews? Sexier raven-haired form-fitting business-wear speechifying?

I wasn't thinking of them as having the same format as Frontline, but they're deluding themselves that they have the same gravitas. The explicit goal of News Night 2.0 is to bring scholarly level debate(best form of the argument) on key political issues(what someone will need in a voting booth) to the public. They intend to elevate their audience and have them be smarter, stronger, and sexier by the end of the program each night. There are damn few shows which have anything near that impact on someone who watches them, and Frontline/Nova were the ones which came to mind first. These shows can rightfully claim the high ground when it comes to educating a voting populace and having a track record of getting fairly close to the goal of using the best form of the argument. I forget the third 'I' but it all sounded like they're trying to build a show with the integrity and power of Frontline in a talking-head format.

Unfortunately, they seem to be utterly failing.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Bryan Ekers]

I'd also nominate Charlie Rose and even The Daily Show to some degree for elevating one-on-one interviews about important issues, and there's no way the fictional News Night can match these when we're shown pre-broadcast staff meetings deciding to the second how much time each guest will get. "Oil executive, huh? Put him down for two and a half minutes." I get that it can be irresistible to build tension by keeping up a breakneck pace with to-the-second timing, but it seems contradictory to the goal of thoughtful discourse. All McAvoy has time for is getting a few soundbites out of his guests or, as I'm guessing will be the case if Sorkin pursues his Tea-Party crashing, enough time for the guest to say something invitingly stupid and McAvoy going all Socrates on him.

[hajario]

I actually enjoyed this episode. I thought that it might be the last one for me but the show has grown on me.

[Lamar Mundane]

The one thing I can't stand about threads about this show (or any written by Sorkin) is the constant nitpicking about inconsequential things, but just for tonight I am going to join in.

Hurricanes aren't caused by high pressure systems, they are caused, or characterized by extremely low pressure systems.

OK, I'm done. I liked this episode a lot, even though this seemed to be the one that ticked off the professional critics the most beforehand. Probably due to the fact that this one bashed the news business almost the whole time.

[singular1]

Boy, Sorkin certainly doesn't hold women in very high regard, does he? This was the most female-bashing episode yet, and I found it extremely insulting from start to finish. Doesn't surprise me at all that the critics didn't like it.
And Bigfoot? Really?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

I liked this episode a lot, even though this seemed to be the one that ticked off the professional critics the most beforehand. Probably due to the fact that this one bashed the news business almost the whole time.

Critics like to bash things themselves, so I don't think that was the problem. My guess is the reviewers focused on this one because most of the characters acted like 14-year-olds throughout the episode, particularly the women; because during this one Will lectured three different women about the principles he acquired two or three episodes ago but we were evidently supposed to admire his behavior even when he called one of his dates a bitch (he was a pompous boor); and the show ended with a cloying, tug-on-your-heartstrings song a la Scrubs (don't get me wrong; Scrubs could be fun). It was sort of a wonder the characters they managed to get a news show on the air at all when they spent so much of their time arguing with each other about their implausibly complicated dating lives.

I have to admit I was uncomfortable their use of the Giffords shooting. Doing it with BP and elections and other events hasn't bothered me, so it's not that they used the shooting- it's that they used it the way they did, just in the last 10 or 15 minutes as a way to confirm their own awesomeness. We got yet another discussion of show tunes in this one, too. I get the sense Sorkin is just playing to the crowd with this show- he doesn't care very much about journalism actually happens, but he wants to say he knows what ought to be done.

[Snooooopy]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Yeah. It's a big honking reminder that Aaron Sorkin is significantly older than these characters and that his background is in musical theater and not journalism.

Wow, I didn't know that. It certainly explains that scene in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip where they are plotting their splashy comeback number and they decide to go with that song from The Pirates of Penzance. To be fair, that was one of the better bits on a show that didn't really get the comedy right very often. But I remember how weird the it's-so-obvious tone in their voices was as they hit upon Gilbert and Sullivan as their big idea. Only obvious to YOU, Sorkin. Only obvious to you.

[Tangent]

The bigfoot stuff was really, really stupid.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Tangent

The bigfoot stuff was really, really stupid.

Yes, it was a bad running gag. So was Will having drinks thrown in his face*. Dev Patel was charming in Slumdog Millionaire and they're not doing much with him here. I hope he at least gets to smack Will around for calling him Punjab in the first episode.

In the interest of saying something positive: Sam Waterston had a little more to do in the first half of this episode and I felt his character was a bit more grounded, and I appreciated that. And how has Jeff Daniels never played a superhero with that chin?

*As much as he deserved to have something thrown at him. Did someone ask earlier if people really throw drinks in each others' faces during bad dates? I've never seen it - cocktails are really fucking expensive.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I have to admit I was uncomfortable their use of the Giffords shooting. Doing it with BP and elections and other events hasn't bothered me, so it's not that they used the shooting- it's that they used it the way they did, just in the last 10 or 15 minutes as a way to confirm their own awesomeness. We got yet another discussion of show tunes in this one, too. I get the sense Sorkin is just playing to the crowd with this show- he doesn't care very much about journalism actually happens, but he wants to say he knows what ought to be done.

Nothing is accidental with this guy, of course. Showing the Palin clip at the beginning, and ending the episode with the Giffords story was, I'm sure, an intentional tie-in of the two. Not to start a debate, but I hold Palin personally (if partially) responsible for that shooting, and I think Sorkin probably does also. But rather than set off a firestorm of criticism, he plants the seed early and lets your subconscious link the two.

[Taomist]

Dan Rather actually did a bit on...dang, Daily Show? CNN?...can't remember Anyway, he roundly applauded The NewsRoom.

I am kind of wondering why. =/

[Taomist]

Ok, finally got around to watching the 4th episode. This is officially my 'guilty pleasure'. Just...wish I didn't have to couch it in those terms. >.<

[hajario]

Originally Posted by hajario

I actually enjoyed this episode. I thought that it might be the last one for me but the show has grown on me.

But, yeah, the Bigfoot thing was lame as can be. I hope that it won't be a season-long running joke.

I laughed when the boyfriend called the roommate's cell phone to prove that the two of them were sleeping together. (No, I don't know anyone's names)

[Misnomer]

I'm still on the fence about this show (I've never given up on a Sorkin show before; if this doesn't get better fast it will be the first), but I love the theme music.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Misnomer

I'm still on the fence about this show (I've never given up on a Sorkin show before; if this doesn't get better fast it will be the first), but I love the theme music.

Haha really? My wife and I mercilessly pan the theme music every time it comes on. It's the weakest part of a pretty weak (but still enjoyable) show, in our opinion. It's just a mishmash of notes that happen to be in the same key!

Your mileage varies of course, just registering an opposing impression...

[Frylock]

A funny observation I read elsewhere (don't remember where):

"Fix You" by Coldplay is four minutes 55 seconds long.

It played for six minutes 45 seconds at the end of this episode.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by Taomist

Dan Rather actually did a bit on...dang, Daily Show? CNN?...can't remember Anyway, he roundly applauded The NewsRoom.

I am kind of wondering why. =/

I'd put him down in the Forer effect camp. Show a newsman getting accolades for his principled stand against the partisan spin that has been the norm in the media for the past decade and newsmen will see themselves in that character. It's the same reason we read our horoscopes and the description of the traits of a Scorpio and think "yea, that's me!"

Originally Posted by hajario

I laughed when the boyfriend called the roommate's cell phone to prove that the two of them were sleeping together. (No, I don't know anyone's names)

Who the hell answers a co-worker's call when you're getting busy with a hot babe for the first time?

And more musical theatre references? Ado Annie, Annie Oakley, Man of La Mancha(well, maybe technically this was a literary reference since they were talking Don Quixote). Still, come on, who talks like this? Certainly not career journalists. Career theatre people sort of do. Around my house it's hardly possible to exclaim "Jesus Christ" without some smartass adding a sing-song "Superstar!" afterward. But we're weird and we're ok with that. It's a natural consequence of my more than two decades in the theatre and having raised a family of kids in the theatre(Cathy Rigby in Peter Pan tonight Ticket burning a hole in my pocket).

Enjoy,
Steven

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

Still, come on, who talks like this? Certainly not career journalists.

I guess this is something he does to amuse himself. The references haven't added anything to the story and they don't fit the characters, particularly the younger ones.

[WordMan]

Count me in on the general POV: frustrating in so many ways already discussed - and the Bigfoot thing was just embarrassing (I kept hoping that the character would be given a pivot to show how BF was a metaphor for some relevant point about journalism today, but no, it was just...stoopid).

But...I find myself watching it and, for now, will likely continue to do so - lousy so far for Sorkin, but not bad overall...

[Misnomer]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Haha really? My wife and I mercilessly pan the theme music every time it comes on.

Ha!

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by Marley23

My guess is the reviewers focused on this one because most of the characters acted like 14-year-olds throughout the episode, particularly the women.

Am I the only one who wants to put Maggie in a burlap sack and toss her in the river? She doesn't seem smart, or funny, or competent, or even pretty. What the hell is she doing there?

It was nice to see Hope Davis, and she looked smokin' hot and seemed like an interesting character. You know, a strong woman who is actually strong and could butt heads with Will. Olivia Munn is absolutely lovely and I thought Will and her character will be hooking up at some point, but probably only to spin out Mackenzie and create a really stupid and frustrating triangle.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

Am I the only one who wants to put Maggie in a burlap sack and toss her in the river?

No. No, you are not. To that list of her flaws you can add the fact that she is weak willed and about as manipulative as Don. Maybe they do belong together after all.

[ThelmaLou]

I didn't think it was preachy ENOUGH. Too much relationship stuff. The producer and the redhead/airhead who are close friends (he slept with her friend and didn't tell her) reminded me A LOT of Holly Hunter and the curly-headed guy in Broadcast News. I want to see more nuts & bolts of the news business and less intraoffice romance.

I will keep watching. Also a big Sorkin fan.

Good interview with him on Fresh Air this week. I love that he says he invents witty dialogue but can't do it himself. He said most of his characters would have nothing to do with him. He sings a tiny bit, too... nice voice.