New Sorkin Trailer

Right, I caught that. Even if she was indeed in the audience, it doesn't totally explain his outburst. Then again, Will's character sounds like a pretty contentious guy, so maybe he did say all that out loud.

BTW, no one whose spent one day in a newsroom would ever believe that the new hotshot reporter just happened to have THE two sources to turn an "accident" on an oil rig to into a major cover-up tied to the Republican party.

 

The outburst made sense to me as the show went on. This is a guy who has been posing as the nice, non-threatening news anchor even though he is an asshole capable of rattling cages. He finally couldn't hold it back any more.

 

Not a Sorkin fan, some of it was far-fetched and again the rapid banter has the potential to annoy me to the point that I eventually stop watching, but I liked the first one enough that I saw it twice. But I told my wife, those scenes meant to show a mostly empty newsroom would not faze many current newspaper journalists.

 

I think the main reason I love Sorkin is the fast-paced banter. Keeps me on my toes and thinking fast.

 

Re Sorkin's most admirable talent: you saved me the trouble.

It's the same reason I so enjoy Robert Downey Jr. . . . snark, delivered in double-time. Can't get enough of it.

 

Same here.

 

Until a week or two ago, I couldn't have told you who this Sorkin guy was. Now, I know that most of the free world hates him.

Anyway, I just watched the pilot. Enjoyed it. I kinda miss working in a fast-paced environment.

 

I prefer Sabrina Lloyd to Emily Mortimer .

Same character grown up?

 

Finally caught up last night, and enjoyed it. I thought McKenzie's idealist speech about saving the Fourth Estate is Will's office was a bit much, but overall, it was entertaining. Sorkin is insufferably sanctimonious, but he's typically the kind of insufferable that I enjoy.

One thing that kind of bugs me about media criticism of shows involving the media is that the writer almost always applies standards to the media shows they're not willing to apply to other shows in terms of plausibility. Sepinwall mentioned how silly it was that the news staff was able to do two weeks worth of reporting in 20 minutes, and that's a valid complaint (especially when you have a show that's grounded to real life events) but at the same time, very rarely does he apply those same standards to, say, Shonda Rhimes shows. Personally, I thought "Scandal" was one of the most ridiculous and implausible shows I've ever seen. I think Grey's Anatomy is just outright ridiculous in terms of its actual connection to medicine. But those shows really don't get called out for similar leaps in logic, simply because the writer doesn't have the background to say "Yeah, I've been in an operating room, and that's just absurd to think they could do that in that short period of time" even when it's obvious.

I think part of the reason reviewers were so quick to destroy this show is that they feel like they're guardians of newsrooms in the way they're not guardians of hospitals, courtrooms and police departments. I'm not sure the viewing audience gives a shit that Sorkin or David Simon might not represent newspapers accurately. Do they get hung up on whether or not counter terrorism was accurately rendered on 24?

Anyway, supposedly the pilot was the best of the first four episodes, so we'll see if the decline is as drastic as it's rumored to be.

 

Time constraints throw realism out the window. That's why Eisenstein invented the montage. Of course Sorkin compresses the journalism process, just like he compressed the much slower political process. I don't care for his shows, too preachy by half for me, even if it's clever preaching, but this is a bum rap.

 

I can see the connection, but the Emily Mortimer character is higher up the food chain than Sabrina Lloyd's. I believe she'll be dealing from a stronger power base.

 

I wanted Emily Mortimer's hair, but hated her character.