Having caught up with the show, Will is just Matt Albie with the substance abuse problem replaced with womanising. That's my big concern. Right now, the show is okay, but it's closer to Studio 60 than The West Wing and it looks like it's going to make the same mistakes as that show. For example, Studio 60 was suffocated by its continual focus on the non-relationship between Matt and Harriot, and The Newsroom is making the exact same mistake with Will and MacKenzie. It's almost the exact same formula, a couple that had an acrimonious split, spent some time apart, forced to work together, develop love/hate relationship. What's worse is that Sorkin has doubled down on the romantic crap with the Jim/Maggie/Don love triangle. Not a single episode has gone by where both of those romantic storylines weren't touched upon, and that same problem is what killed Studio 60 for me. Sorkin needs to dump that stuff and focus on the news.I must say that I really appreciate Will McAvoy as a character. I feel that he's already a much more layered and deeper character than most on West Wing. He's an untypical Sorkin hero in that he's kind of a broken man in regard to his personal life.
Because it was really badly written. There wasn't even a story to that episode, the fact that they were giving a lecture was the story.That was the point of the episode and whats wrong with TV trying to educate its audience anyway?It was followed up by Isaac and Ishmael, an episode that was literally a lecture to schoolchildren about how not all Arabs are bad.
But that's the inherent trap, innit? Because the show's about real-world news, it feels relevant. But because it's set in the real world two years ago, we know it'll never really change anything; it'll just always doodle around the margins. With The West Wing, the gang may not have been in the real world per se, but they could get s*** done.What's worse is that Sorkin has doubled down on the romantic crap with the Jim/Maggie/Don love triangle. Not a single episode has gone by where both of those romantic storylines weren't touched upon, and that same problem is what killed Studio 60 for me. Sorkin needs to dump that stuff and focus on the news.
I wouldn't say that it's overly partisan. Or maybe I should say it's not overtly partisan. There are obviously definite leftist leanings in the writing, the topics being covered and the conclusions being drawn, but since they're using the Tea Party as the foil/baseline for comparison, even Ronald Reagan would be considered a rainbow-flag waving liberal communist by today's standards. Makes for easy pickings, really. The real challenge is painting in shades of gray which they arguably haven't even tried to do. Perhaps that's why they are gathering together a whole new writing team.I am a nonpartisan who hates both sides. Does this show go after dems too for Obama's executive power grabs, wars, war on whistleblowers and Wall Street funders too or is it a partisan hack show which only goes after one side?
I want to like the show but i am not a partisan hack and i want to see some ideological diversity.They should hire a couple of lbertairan writers for the show and go after both sides. Untill then i cannot watch this. They would actualy win viewers instead of losing them considering how low public trust is in the US government.I wouldn't say that it's overly partisan. Or maybe I should say it's not overtly partisan. There are obviously definite leftist leanings in the writing, the topics being covered and the conclusions being drawn, but since they're using the Tea Party as the foil/baseline for comparison, even Ronald Reagan would be considered a rainbow-flag waving liberal communist by today's standards. Makes for easy pickings, really. The real challengie is painting in shades of gray which they arguably haven't even tried to do. Perhaps that's why they are gathering together a whole new writing team.I am a nonpartisan who hates both sides. Does this show go after dems too for Obama's executive power grabs, wars, war on whistleblowers and Wall Street funders too or is it a partisan hack show which only goes after one side?
I want to like the show but i am not a partisan hack and i want to see some ideological diversity.They should hire a couple of lbertairan writers for the show and go after both sides.
Since you've mentioned "partisan hack" twice now, why don't you talk about the ways in which it is partisan and in which ways the writers are hacks.I want to like the show but i am not a partisan hack and i want to see some ideological diversity.They should hire a couple of lbertairan writers for the show and go after both sides. Untill then i cannot watch this. They would actualy win viewers instead of losing them considering how low public trust is in the US government.I wouldn't say that it's overly partisan. Or maybe I should say it's not overtly partisan. There are obviously definite leftist leanings in the writing, the topics being covered and the conclusions being drawn, but since they're using the Tea Party as the foil/baseline for comparison, even Ronald Reagan would be considered a rainbow-flag waving liberal communist by today's standards. Makes for easy pickings, really. The real challengie is painting in shades of gray which they arguably haven't even tried to do. Perhaps that's why they are gathering together a whole new writing team.I am a nonpartisan who hates both sides. Does this show go after dems too for Obama's executive power grabs, wars, war on whistleblowers and Wall Street funders too or is it a partisan hack show which only goes after one side?
The perspective of the show is Sorkin's, which is primarily from the left of the Democratic party, but the main character is a sympathetic socially moderate conservative much like Vinnick from the last couple seasons of the West Wing, essentially the kind of Republican that liberals wished still existed in politics because they aren't just about "god, guns and gays."
Most of the outright criticism and commentary on the show is shining a very unflattering light on the Tea Party, and by association the Republican party; but, it is primarily from the heavy heart of our "hero" who laments what his party has become and not portrayed as gloating by a liberal/democrat.
Obama was criticised for being worse on gun-control than Bush was, but that was part of a scene criticising the Tea Party types for their unfounded fear that Obama is a socialist that's trying to take their guns.I am a nonpartisan who hates both sides. Does this show go after dems too for Obama's executive power grabs, wars, war on whistleblowers and Wall Street funders too or is it a partisan hack show which only goes after one side?
Yeah, that's a big problem with the format, and it was especially noticeable in the third episode when Will went on a 6 month crusade against the Tea Party, yet they still won the election. If the point of the show is that the news has a duty to inform the electorate so they can make better decisions then it's not working, because the result is that the better-informed electorate voted for the same people. The show needs the freedom to convey its message and tying it into the real world wont allow them to do that. Hopefully they'll drop that angle in season 2.But that's the inherent trap, innit? Because the show's about real-world news, it feels relevant. But because it's set in the real world two years ago, we know it'll never really change anything; it'll just always doodle around the margins. With The West Wing, the gang may not have been in the real world per se, but they could get s*** done.
I agree. I've been watching the show but in my mind, it is not yet near the level that The West Wing had, even this early in its run. The fact that the main character is said to be a Republican member seems to be only to attempt to give more power and credibility to the left-leaning views that the show (through him) is espousing. Who's criticism of an organization would you take more strongly: an outsider waving his fists around wildly or an inside member expressing dissention.I am already posting more then enough on Perspectives.com about politics.
The perspective of the show is Sorkin's, which is primarily from the left of the Democratic party, but the main character is a sympathetic socially moderate conservative much like Vinnick from the last couple seasons of the West Wing, essentially the kind of Republican that liberals wished still existed in politics because they aren't just about "god, guns and gays."
What are his policy positions that indicate that he is a David Frum republican?
Yeah, while I'm annoyed by Will's RINO schtick, the way the characters (particularly the women other than Sloan) are written is the main problem I have with this show.Yet still, the politics is the most interesting part of the show. What is becoming increasingly difficult to tolerate is the retardedly juvenile behaviour of the characters including two love triangles that are often painful to witness.
Would you be able to list your co-workers' political stance with more than broad strokes?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.