Will's apology for the lack of integrity in newscasts sets off constant critiques of the Tea Party before the November 2010 midterm elections, but draws the ire of network executives and Atlantis World Media CEO Leona Lansing. Meanwhile, Don confronts Elliot about his analytical skills; Jim helps Maggie during a panic attack; and Mac is unnerved by Will's endless parade of romantic conquests.
1-3: "The 112th Congress" 2012.07.08
Started by
URFloorMatt
, Jul 08 2012 10:00 PM
128 replies to this topic
#1
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:00 PM
From TV Guide:
#2
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:00 PM
Here we go!
Episode 3!
Episode 3!
#3
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:01 PM
A much more consistent episode.
I think that if this is the example of the quality we can expect, it'll be a good show.
I think that if this is the example of the quality we can expect, it'll be a good show.
#4
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:16 PM
I cringe every time Sam Waterston "acts". His mugging is embarrassing.
Doesn't Sorkin support Democratic candidates? It seems weird that he writes an episode that seems to decry conservative Republicans being defeated in primaries, when he'd be supporting their Democratic opponents in the general election. Why is defeating them in the primaries bad, when defeating them in the general election is good?
And why are wealthy liberals like Sorkin perplexed when middle and working class people vote Republican, "against their own interests". Aren't Republicans the party of the rich? Isn't Sorkin rich? Why doesn't he ask why he votes against his own economic interests?
Doesn't Sorkin support Democratic candidates? It seems weird that he writes an episode that seems to decry conservative Republicans being defeated in primaries, when he'd be supporting their Democratic opponents in the general election. Why is defeating them in the primaries bad, when defeating them in the general election is good?
And why are wealthy liberals like Sorkin perplexed when middle and working class people vote Republican, "against their own interests". Aren't Republicans the party of the rich? Isn't Sorkin rich? Why doesn't he ask why he votes against his own economic interests?
#5
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:16 PM
This episode was much better. I was really let down by episode two and was planning on throwing in the towel if things didn't improve by tonight. I wish they'd can the stupid relationship angst/trials that we are seeing between Will/Mac and Don/Maggie....or at least stop using same old, same old relationship plotlines. It seems as if the writers don't really know what to do with those aspects of the storyline. However, I did agree with Maggie telling Will about meeting his dates at a restaurant instead of them constantly coming to the newsroom (or have them wait in the lobby waiting area or something). I get that his character is supposed to be a jerk and all, but he could at least *try* to be professional in that regard.
Edited by MetalMel, Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:17 PM.
#6
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:19 PM
I didn't know what "smug" meant until I met this show. Same goes for "puerile" and "facile". Three tries, I'm out. Terrible series. But damn, Jane Fonda has a great plastic surgeon.
Edited by MommaJ, Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:21 PM.
#7
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:20 PM
I liked this episode a lot. Jane Fonda and Sam Waterston killed that final scene, and sealed the episode. The relationship stuff continues to grate, and Alison Pill continues to be a sore spot for over-acting, but aside from that this was a solid hour of television and I'm eager for next week.
#8
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:40 PM
Because they're being defeated in the primaries by even more conservative candidates, not by more liberal ones.Doesn't Sorkin support Democratic candidates? It seems weird that he writes an episode that seems to decry conservative Republicans being defeated in primaries, when he'd be supporting their Democratic opponents in the general election. Why is defeating them in the primaries bad, when defeating them in the general election is good?
I thought this was a much more consistent episode overall, with a lot less pontificating on The News, and some appropriately realistic intrusions of actual network business. Maggie is still kind of a mess of a character, though (who suddenly has panic attacks).
#9
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:46 PM
Let me get this straight. Will McAvoy just equated his failure to do a responsible newscast with the government's failure to prevent 9/11?
That was arrogance so offensive I can't even find the words.
On the other hand, I did laugh two or three times.
That was arrogance so offensive I can't even find the words.
On the other hand, I did laugh two or three times.
#10
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:47 PM
Let me get this straight. Will McAvoy just equated his failure to do a responsible newscast with the government's failure to prevent 9/11?
I think it was an issue of general accountability.
#11
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 10:55 PM
I heard him suggesting an equivalency.Let me get this straight. Will McAvoy just equated his failure to do a responsible newscast with the government's failure to prevent 9/11?
I think it was an issue of general accountability.
#12
Posted Jul 8, 2012 @ 11:05 PM
Well that's an issue of personal taste, I guess.
In any case, Will is right to go after Tea Party delegates.
But if he honestly believes in democracy, he has to believe in it when people choose the candidates he doesn't like as well as the ones he does.
I don't agree with the Tea Party on everything it believes in being more a "I wish the 99% were a party" type.
I do, however, think it was important that the Republican and Democratic parties got a wake-up call that the public could act on its own.
In any case, Will is right to go after Tea Party delegates.
But if he honestly believes in democracy, he has to believe in it when people choose the candidates he doesn't like as well as the ones he does.
I don't agree with the Tea Party on everything it believes in being more a "I wish the 99% were a party" type.
I do, however, think it was important that the Republican and Democratic parties got a wake-up call that the public could act on its own.
#13
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:05 AM
But he didn't attack the Tea Party because he "didn't like it". He attacked the Tea Party because many of its stances are contradictory or incoherent, and because it purports to be a grassroots movement when it receives a tremendous amount of financial support from precisely the kind of incredibly rich, well connected interests it purports to be fighting against.
Meanwhile, one female character is so unprofessional she can't keep her shit vaguely together at work in the face of her ex going on dates, and another female character needs to be told by a male character how to handle her own medical condition. *rolls eyes*
Meanwhile, one female character is so unprofessional she can't keep her shit vaguely together at work in the face of her ex going on dates, and another female character needs to be told by a male character how to handle her own medical condition. *rolls eyes*
#14
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:08 AM
And ironically, misspelled Richard Clarke's name while they did it.I think it was an issue of general accountability.
#15
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:15 AM
Meanwhile, one female character is so unprofessional she can't keep her shit vaguely together at work in the face of her ex going on dates, and another female character needs to be told by a male character how to handle her own medical condition. *rolls eyes*
Yeah, that was bad--those were the moments in tonight's otherwise pretty good episode when I was literally embarrassed for Sorkin. As written, Maggie and Mackenzie are shaping up to be almost too painful to watch on screen. Aaron, if you're listening, take note: a little neurosis in a character can go a very long way. You're way over your quota with these two. On the other hand, I thought Jane Fonda's Leona kind of rocked: she was strong, articulate, and even though she's the adversary to Our Heroes, nothing she said was made to sound stupid. I'll be keeping my eye on her, because she might be one of the few female characters on the show who's at all redeemable (or even bearable).
Edited by crashdown, Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:15 AM.
#16
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:36 AM
It's kind of weird to have Jane Fonda as their Ted Turner.
I was surprised by how quickly they're having time pass.
I was surprised by how quickly they're having time pass.
Edited by jbreckenridge, Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:38 AM.
#17
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:44 AM
Aaron Sorkin should use this when writing a female character, he should ask himself the following question:
If this were written for a male character would I consider it ridiculous and/or irritating?
If the answer is yes, Mr. Sorkin, chances are you should not write it. That's not to say that there aren't specifics to the female experience that are worth writing about on television (there is, but Sorkin simply isn't equipped in that regard) or there should never be irritating characters. However, this is a prevalent problem particularly of The Newsroom, so if he is asking himself this question and he thinks "yes" a whole lot, that's a problem.
The best characters have elements to them that aren't gender specific. I think we are supposed to find Mackenzie and Maggie likeable characters. I certainly like the actresses playing them, but Sorkin is making it incredibly hard to do so. The most likeable character is Jim because he is a smart, competent, and empathetic. Those aren't inherently male, they are inherently human. MacKenzie as displayed in this episode is supposed to be competent because that's what the show tells us but the Newsroom is showing that she lacks professionalism and goes manic over her romantic jealousy. Will in contrast is able to be calmly (albeit a little coldly) affected when he meets her new boyfriend. Maggie's panic attacks could be interesting with an otherwise very composed character to add dynamics and contradiction, but paired with her bumbling clumsiness and her lack of professional boundaries adds up to a character that lacks functionality. Those panic attacks were happening just as her character was contributing something competently significant to the show. The show circumvents her Koch contribution with the panic attack.
If this were written for a male character would I consider it ridiculous and/or irritating?
If the answer is yes, Mr. Sorkin, chances are you should not write it. That's not to say that there aren't specifics to the female experience that are worth writing about on television (there is, but Sorkin simply isn't equipped in that regard) or there should never be irritating characters. However, this is a prevalent problem particularly of The Newsroom, so if he is asking himself this question and he thinks "yes" a whole lot, that's a problem.
The best characters have elements to them that aren't gender specific. I think we are supposed to find Mackenzie and Maggie likeable characters. I certainly like the actresses playing them, but Sorkin is making it incredibly hard to do so. The most likeable character is Jim because he is a smart, competent, and empathetic. Those aren't inherently male, they are inherently human. MacKenzie as displayed in this episode is supposed to be competent because that's what the show tells us but the Newsroom is showing that she lacks professionalism and goes manic over her romantic jealousy. Will in contrast is able to be calmly (albeit a little coldly) affected when he meets her new boyfriend. Maggie's panic attacks could be interesting with an otherwise very composed character to add dynamics and contradiction, but paired with her bumbling clumsiness and her lack of professional boundaries adds up to a character that lacks functionality. Those panic attacks were happening just as her character was contributing something competently significant to the show. The show circumvents her Koch contribution with the panic attack.
Edited by OptimisticCynic, Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:44 AM.
#18
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 12:49 AM
Jane Fonda is the best female character by far.
#19
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 1:06 AM
I love the show and like most of the characters. I don't find the female characters any more ridiculous than the men although I don't know what both the guys see in Maggie. And I love the Law and Order guy. I don't think he's overacting. He's just playing a different character. Hope it lasts. The dialogue sings. Maybe it's because I haven't watched Sorkin shows in the past although I have been meaning to watch Sports Night. Jane Fonda was fabulous.
#20
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 2:00 AM
This episode was so much better than the last. I can deal with this
#21
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 2:32 AM
This episode wasn't quite as terrible as the previous one, but it was still pretty bad.
In the real world, Jane Fonda's threat would be empty. There's a lot of legal precedent that says non-compete clauses are unenforceable when one is fired. They'd have to get him to resign in negotiation, but they'd probably have to give him a lot of money in return (see Keith Olberman).
In the real world, Jane Fonda's threat would be empty. There's a lot of legal precedent that says non-compete clauses are unenforceable when one is fired. They'd have to get him to resign in negotiation, but they'd probably have to give him a lot of money in return (see Keith Olberman).
Edited by Cosmosgravitati, Jul 9, 2012 @ 2:34 AM.
#22
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 3:07 AM
Better than last week, but still not as good as the pilot. It just felt like a big mishmash, like there was no focus. One of the things Sorkin has talked about is how nice it is not to have act breaks on HBO, but I wonder if he needs the discipline of structure to keep the tension going.
Something just feels off. It's the same way I feel about notJimHalpert. Half the time he's a fine hero, but the rest of the time he makes these weird smug facial expressions, and generally comes off as a passive-aggressive jerk. He isn't anywhere near cool enough to be calling Neal a nerd. (Neal was awesome tonight.) And McRib sandwich? Don is a champ for telling Jim to f himself.
As for the show in general... I think one of the really big issues is that the "antagonist" is external to the Newsroom. It's alternately the state of the media today or whichever target Sorkin wants to take on. So we have a bunch of strawmen, but they're so obvious and poorly-constructed that there's no drama when Will slam dunks on them over and over. Leona is a little more interesting but is still sort of boring in the sense that we've seen her before. On the West Wing and Sports Night there seemed to be way more internal debate about the issues, but here it seems like the whole team agrees on what the problem is, and it's basically Us vs the World.
"We are the media elite." Ugh. And God help me if I hear Murrow get namechecked one more time.
It seemed kind of weak for Will to be bringing the women to the studio. Whether it was subliminal revenge against Mackenzie or not, it seemed like a cheap ploy to dazzle his dates. I can understand he's still torn up about Mackenzie, but it seemed inconsistent with his player status to be resorting to such transparent tactics, and inconsistent with the quality of the women (eg. brain surgeon) to fall for them.
I don't know what Sorkin is doing with Mackenzie. I honestly expected a laugh track to kick in when she met the cheerleader. And he could have at least given her a solid boyfriend, instead of someone she felt mildly embarrassed of.
The recycled Sorkinisms really stick out now. I'm not sure if they sound worse because I don't like the characters as much or whether I'm just annoyed by the deja vu. There were at least four or five this episode, but I'd have to go back and watch for them.
FInally, that karaoke bar still looks nothing like any karaoke bar I've ever been to.
After all that, I'm still on board. I keep getting the feeling that Sorkin's really close to getting the bat squarely on the ball, and I want to be around if he does nail one.
Something just feels off. It's the same way I feel about notJimHalpert. Half the time he's a fine hero, but the rest of the time he makes these weird smug facial expressions, and generally comes off as a passive-aggressive jerk. He isn't anywhere near cool enough to be calling Neal a nerd. (Neal was awesome tonight.) And McRib sandwich? Don is a champ for telling Jim to f himself.
As for the show in general... I think one of the really big issues is that the "antagonist" is external to the Newsroom. It's alternately the state of the media today or whichever target Sorkin wants to take on. So we have a bunch of strawmen, but they're so obvious and poorly-constructed that there's no drama when Will slam dunks on them over and over. Leona is a little more interesting but is still sort of boring in the sense that we've seen her before. On the West Wing and Sports Night there seemed to be way more internal debate about the issues, but here it seems like the whole team agrees on what the problem is, and it's basically Us vs the World.
"We are the media elite." Ugh. And God help me if I hear Murrow get namechecked one more time.
It seemed kind of weak for Will to be bringing the women to the studio. Whether it was subliminal revenge against Mackenzie or not, it seemed like a cheap ploy to dazzle his dates. I can understand he's still torn up about Mackenzie, but it seemed inconsistent with his player status to be resorting to such transparent tactics, and inconsistent with the quality of the women (eg. brain surgeon) to fall for them.
I don't know what Sorkin is doing with Mackenzie. I honestly expected a laugh track to kick in when she met the cheerleader. And he could have at least given her a solid boyfriend, instead of someone she felt mildly embarrassed of.
The recycled Sorkinisms really stick out now. I'm not sure if they sound worse because I don't like the characters as much or whether I'm just annoyed by the deja vu. There were at least four or five this episode, but I'd have to go back and watch for them.
FInally, that karaoke bar still looks nothing like any karaoke bar I've ever been to.
After all that, I'm still on board. I keep getting the feeling that Sorkin's really close to getting the bat squarely on the ball, and I want to be around if he does nail one.
#23
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 3:10 AM
Okay, I get it. Sorkin has been off of TV for awhile so he needs to purge most of this stuff from his system. That is why I am so glad that time is moving so fast. Hopefully in three more episodes we will be current. Once again, the only characters that feel like real people are the ones we are supposed to root against. If this show was centered around Leona, Don, Reese, Elliot, Sloan and Charlie (Leona brings out the best in his character) it would be..well...watchable.
That is why this show gets on my nerves. If your going to stink, just stink. Don't stink and then have little flashes of awesome.
That is why this show gets on my nerves. If your going to stink, just stink. Don't stink and then have little flashes of awesome.
#24
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 3:14 AM
Well, it was better then last week's episode, but for everything I liked, there is just so much stuff I don't. Mainly freaking Maggie and Mackenzie. Wow, has Sorkin created two of the most annoying characters of the summer so far. I just can't see how these two still have jobs. I can at least convince myself that Maggie's fuck-ups are realistic since she is a newbie, but I I keep hearing from other characters how awesome Mackenzie is suppose to be, but I'm not seeing it. And her attitude just makes things worse. I don't like Will, but I at least find him competent. But Mackenzie's freak-outs over his dates just made her look immature. And it just doesn't help that the usually solid Emily Mortimer can't seem to bring anything to the role.
As for Maggie, I give up. I just don't see what the hell Jim sees in her, to keep giving her longing glances like he does. She's just fucking obnoxious. You really could do better, Jim. Curious over him bonding with Neal. Not sure what what was going on with the scene at the bar. I know the "joke" was suppose to be Neal's geekiness caused those ladies nearby to leave, but the actresses seemed to play it more like they actually kind of liked it. I thought for sure they were going to have the cliched reveal that they end up digging him, but it was just dropped. Eh, I just hope they a) give him more to do, but b) don't fuck it up and make me hate him. Which, with Sorkin, might be a tall order.
I would have thought for sure Sam Waterston vs. Jane Fonda would have been epic, but it just dragged to long for my taste. Still, Fonda's character was probably one of the best things about the episode.
Cool seeing a few more familiar faces like Phillip Baker Hall a the incumbent Senator that lost to the Tea Party guy and Matt Long as the guy who was in the meeting with Charlie, Fonda, and her son.
Surprisingly still find myself liking Sloan despite (or maybe perhaps?) her limited screen time. Never would have predicted Olivia Munn would be one of the best things about a show.
As for Maggie, I give up. I just don't see what the hell Jim sees in her, to keep giving her longing glances like he does. She's just fucking obnoxious. You really could do better, Jim. Curious over him bonding with Neal. Not sure what what was going on with the scene at the bar. I know the "joke" was suppose to be Neal's geekiness caused those ladies nearby to leave, but the actresses seemed to play it more like they actually kind of liked it. I thought for sure they were going to have the cliched reveal that they end up digging him, but it was just dropped. Eh, I just hope they a) give him more to do, but b) don't fuck it up and make me hate him. Which, with Sorkin, might be a tall order.
I would have thought for sure Sam Waterston vs. Jane Fonda would have been epic, but it just dragged to long for my taste. Still, Fonda's character was probably one of the best things about the episode.
Cool seeing a few more familiar faces like Phillip Baker Hall a the incumbent Senator that lost to the Tea Party guy and Matt Long as the guy who was in the meeting with Charlie, Fonda, and her son.
Surprisingly still find myself liking Sloan despite (or maybe perhaps?) her limited screen time. Never would have predicted Olivia Munn would be one of the best things about a show.
#25
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 4:26 AM
I think Will actually was hurt by Mackenzie's actions but since he's been womanizing since she cheated on him, I think his handling of girls is pretty much how he's always acted.
MacKenzie is acting like she still has any hold over his romantic history.
MacKenzie is acting like she still has any hold over his romantic history.
Edited by DoctorDogBoy, Jul 9, 2012 @ 8:38 AM.
#26
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 6:39 AM
I think you mean Will (Jeff Daniels' character).I think Jim actually was hurt by Mackenzie's actions but since he's been womanizing since she cheated on him, I think his handling of girls is pretty much how he's always acted.
Speaking of Jim...Maybe Maggie should have been named Pam and Don should have been named Roy. The part after he helps her through panic attack, where she picks up ther phone and says, "That was him." reminded me of a scene in an early episode of the Office when Pam's mum comes by and, after being introduced to Jim, asks quietly, "Is that him?" Pam had obviously been talking to her about him, just as Maggie had obviously been talking to her room mate about Jim.
Otherwise, I am enjoying this show. I haven't seen much of Sorkin's work. I didn't watch West Wing. I did like Studio 60. I watched a bit of Sports Night. There was one character on it who was really smug, and condescending to his girlfriend, kind of like the Don/Maggie situation.
Edited by murrrrr, Jul 9, 2012 @ 6:52 AM.
#27
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 6:58 AM
This episode was so much better. Mackenzie's crazy continues to great, but at least she and Maggie made strides toward being competent in this episode. I found Maggie and Jim's scenes kind of sweet this episode. Someone pointed out that it was smug of Jim to tell her how to manage her own medical condition, but given what we have scene of Maggie, I'd totally buy that she's the type to forget her medicine. But why is Neal so invested in Jim's crush all of a sudden? Unless he is trying to get Jim laid so he won't have to deal with it anymore. Also, Neal is totally adorable, despite his "nerdiness." Were I in a bar and saw Jim and Neal, I'd go talk to them.
Don and Elliot are kind of awesome together. I want to see more of them. It was strange to see Don as such a sad sack this week, though. I miss his usual sarcastic exasperation with the News Night team.
Maggie's habit of telling Will inappropriate things at he desk is totally unprofessionl, but I kind of like it as a running gag. Although, Will is in a way considering MacKenzie's feelings by bringing his ladies up to the newsroom -- he wants to make her jealous. If not, he truly wouldn't care if they met him elsewhere. Thoug I'd also buy it if he is just so arrogant that he wants to dazzle his dates by bringing them to a room where he is king.
The news content seemed like it was everything Sorkin wanted America to know about the Tea Party in 2010 but couldn't say because he wasn't on TV.
Why such a big deal bringing Sloan in last week and then only two seconds of her this episiode?
All in all, this week was much more promising. I'll stick around for non-John Gallagher reasons next week.
Don and Elliot are kind of awesome together. I want to see more of them. It was strange to see Don as such a sad sack this week, though. I miss his usual sarcastic exasperation with the News Night team.
Maggie's habit of telling Will inappropriate things at he desk is totally unprofessionl, but I kind of like it as a running gag. Although, Will is in a way considering MacKenzie's feelings by bringing his ladies up to the newsroom -- he wants to make her jealous. If not, he truly wouldn't care if they met him elsewhere. Thoug I'd also buy it if he is just so arrogant that he wants to dazzle his dates by bringing them to a room where he is king.
The news content seemed like it was everything Sorkin wanted America to know about the Tea Party in 2010 but couldn't say because he wasn't on TV.
Why such a big deal bringing Sloan in last week and then only two seconds of her this episiode?
All in all, this week was much more promising. I'll stick around for non-John Gallagher reasons next week.
#28
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 7:11 AM
Yeah, that didn't make sense to me. Non-compete clauses are in valued employees' contracts to make sure those employees, at the end of their contracts, don't work for a competitor for a set number of years, or start up their own competing businesses. Generally there's also some benefit offered to the employee, which, if he takes it, signals his agreement to these terms. For instance, "when you leave, we'll give you a severance of five years' salary." All bets are off when, rather than leaving voluntarily, the employee is fired. And Jane Fonda (I think I'm gonna just keep calling her Jane Fonda) was talking about firing Will.In the real world, Jane Fonda's threat would be empty. There's a lot of legal precedent that says non-compete clauses are unenforceable when one is fired.
Of course, companies have ways of getting rid of people without firing them, for instance by subjecting them to intolerable humiliations that make them beg to be released from their contracts. For instance, if Jane Fonda said to Will, "We're not firing you. We love you. We're simply moving your show to 3 in the morning," then he would probably want to negotiate a release, and then he might be bound by the non-compete clause. But she didn't say that, she said "fired."
Edited by Milburn Stone, Jul 9, 2012 @ 7:12 AM.
#29
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 7:17 AM
I guess we're to understand that newsrooms are these incestuous, no-boundaries areas where people just let it all hang out, and Election Night is a no-holds-barred event. Is that true? Because the scene of Maggie and Don making out on the stairs was ridiculous to me. I work in a boring office where professionalism is expected, so what do I know.
In general, more watchable than last week, but I did find myself involuntarily eye-rolling at the Maggie-Jim scenes. It's just so contrived. I guess Sorkin felt like he needed to introduce the romantic angle early, but personally I'd rather see these things develop organically. The actors have enough chemistry, but the situations are just stupid.
I also hated the scene with Eliot and Don. I refuse to believe that Don's anchor knows so much about Don's relationship with a 26-y/o former intern, and that that relationship is so important to Don that it's destroying the integrity of Don's work and the new show.
Mackenzie was ridiculous.
Oh, and I didn't find Jane Fonda believable at all. I was so distracted by her glasses on/glasses off portrayal of her character. And I hate how blatantly "wrong" her character is. Surely there are shades of gray here, and greedy corporate moguls don't just blithely admit that they are for one thing only: profit. -- I'll admit, I'm naive in that regard.
In general, more watchable than last week, but I did find myself involuntarily eye-rolling at the Maggie-Jim scenes. It's just so contrived. I guess Sorkin felt like he needed to introduce the romantic angle early, but personally I'd rather see these things develop organically. The actors have enough chemistry, but the situations are just stupid.
I also hated the scene with Eliot and Don. I refuse to believe that Don's anchor knows so much about Don's relationship with a 26-y/o former intern, and that that relationship is so important to Don that it's destroying the integrity of Don's work and the new show.
Mackenzie was ridiculous.
Oh, and I didn't find Jane Fonda believable at all. I was so distracted by her glasses on/glasses off portrayal of her character. And I hate how blatantly "wrong" her character is. Surely there are shades of gray here, and greedy corporate moguls don't just blithely admit that they are for one thing only: profit. -- I'll admit, I'm naive in that regard.
#30
Posted Jul 9, 2012 @ 7:32 AM
I think maybe because the reviews were so bad I was expecting not to make it through the episode, but I have to say, whether it was the lowered expectations or a few good decisions along the way but I was happy with some of the things that happened in this episode.
First I love that we’ve made a six month jump forward. Watching these people learn to use email was painful. Now, we should be past that brainless shit. The reason The West Wing worked was that at the start we were nearly a year into the first term. I didn’t have the watch the growing pains. I’m happy to see the same thing happen here. Its a good decision that makes me excited about the show moving forward.
Sloan Sabbith, the little we got of her, was once again the most interesting, intelligent female character on the show. Obviously she hasn’t been very developed as a character but the longer I get to see her be smart and good at her job the more willing I am to be forgiving when we start to see the ways she’s flawed.
The conversation between Don and Elliott during the break was good. I enjoyed watching two people who know each other and are both fucking up acknowledge it, call each other on their shit and move on. I don’t know how Will treated Don before but Don and Elliott have a good professional relationship and it was nice to get insight on them and on why Don moved on. Plus I love a Gypsy shout out. And I also really liked that we got to see the stakes that Don is dealing with. Jim is supposed to be this nice guy but he’s treating Don like shit for doing his job. I like Don and I don’t know if I’m supposed to.
There was more Neal and it wasn’t just him being IT/nerd guy. Like with Sloan, he’s undeveloped so there’s room for him to be ruined but the longer he’s likeable the more forgiving I can be if that happens.
Leona Lansing is interesting and I think a very real character. I like that boundaries are now being set. I like that she’s created some high stakes otherwise this is just people taking themselves way too seriously. (And that was the biggest problem I had with Studio 60.) Her speech at the end was a bit too on the nose in that a crack of thunder and an evil laugh probably wouldn’t have been out of place but I do like that there is something very real at risk for these people even if in the real world most people know that a non-compete won’t hold up.
Finally, I liked the scenes we saw of the newscast. It’s idealized in that Sorkin has had years to research this and has the benefit of hindsight to frame Will’s arguments, but I would watch the hell out of a show where there’s no fluff pieces or need to overhype events to create a panic. I like real debate and informed people. Even if they got it wrong as often as they got it right, I would watch the hell out of that show.
There were flaws. I hate the Mackenzie/Will drama. I hated watching her treat the professional choreographer and dancer like she was some random Will found at a mall. I hate Maggie. I hate that she knows less about how to deal with her anxiety than someone who doesn’t have the disorder. I hate that Jim has to “fix” her in a literal sense this episode and in a figurative sense over the course of the series. I hope with the six month jump that Maggie will be stronger at work now. I don’t think Sam Waterson is up to this in general. I have not been impressed with his acting yet and his character should be someone interesting, someone controlling the whole show and yet I’d have to look up his name.
First I love that we’ve made a six month jump forward. Watching these people learn to use email was painful. Now, we should be past that brainless shit. The reason The West Wing worked was that at the start we were nearly a year into the first term. I didn’t have the watch the growing pains. I’m happy to see the same thing happen here. Its a good decision that makes me excited about the show moving forward.
Sloan Sabbith, the little we got of her, was once again the most interesting, intelligent female character on the show. Obviously she hasn’t been very developed as a character but the longer I get to see her be smart and good at her job the more willing I am to be forgiving when we start to see the ways she’s flawed.
The conversation between Don and Elliott during the break was good. I enjoyed watching two people who know each other and are both fucking up acknowledge it, call each other on their shit and move on. I don’t know how Will treated Don before but Don and Elliott have a good professional relationship and it was nice to get insight on them and on why Don moved on. Plus I love a Gypsy shout out. And I also really liked that we got to see the stakes that Don is dealing with. Jim is supposed to be this nice guy but he’s treating Don like shit for doing his job. I like Don and I don’t know if I’m supposed to.
There was more Neal and it wasn’t just him being IT/nerd guy. Like with Sloan, he’s undeveloped so there’s room for him to be ruined but the longer he’s likeable the more forgiving I can be if that happens.
Leona Lansing is interesting and I think a very real character. I like that boundaries are now being set. I like that she’s created some high stakes otherwise this is just people taking themselves way too seriously. (And that was the biggest problem I had with Studio 60.) Her speech at the end was a bit too on the nose in that a crack of thunder and an evil laugh probably wouldn’t have been out of place but I do like that there is something very real at risk for these people even if in the real world most people know that a non-compete won’t hold up.
Finally, I liked the scenes we saw of the newscast. It’s idealized in that Sorkin has had years to research this and has the benefit of hindsight to frame Will’s arguments, but I would watch the hell out of a show where there’s no fluff pieces or need to overhype events to create a panic. I like real debate and informed people. Even if they got it wrong as often as they got it right, I would watch the hell out of that show.
There were flaws. I hate the Mackenzie/Will drama. I hated watching her treat the professional choreographer and dancer like she was some random Will found at a mall. I hate Maggie. I hate that she knows less about how to deal with her anxiety than someone who doesn’t have the disorder. I hate that Jim has to “fix” her in a literal sense this episode and in a figurative sense over the course of the series. I hope with the six month jump that Maggie will be stronger at work now. I don’t think Sam Waterson is up to this in general. I have not been impressed with his acting yet and his character should be someone interesting, someone controlling the whole show and yet I’d have to look up his name.
Television Without Pity • © 2013 Bravo Media LLC • A Division of NBCUniversal • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy • AdChoices