Sorkin cable news pilot picked up at HBO

[bigdaddy]

I don't like the fact they are rushing the show.

 

[IndyJones]

I don't like the fact they are rushing the show.

Where have you seen that?

 

[Gaith]

Now that you mention it, that may be exactly why I like his movies and never care much for his TV shows. The movies tell interesting, nuanced, stories that make you think and draw you own conclusions. The TV shows tend to become lectures on "the way things ought to be."

I can dig this. I loved Sorkin's The West Wing run while it lasted, but revisiting those old eps, the super-high syrup content can be pretty darn tough to handle, especially when the show isn't dealing with its biggest and most operatic moments. It was bold, bravura TV-making, but I recently watched all of Boston Legal, which often made much edgier and even more realistic points in spite of its far more formulaic structure.

After Charlie Wilson's War and The Social Network, I was hoping that, from here on out, Sorkin would stick to fact-based drama. TSN, for instance, was by far the darkest writing of his I'd ever seen, and I was really looking forward to his prospective Jon Edwards movie. Heck, still am.

But a Studio 60 meets Countdown with KO? That gets a giant meh from me so far...

 

[Harvey]

If you want another fact-based drama by Sorkin, there's Moneyball coming out this month, although he's not the only credited writer.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

This premise sounds a bit passe and quaint. Cable news is increasingly dominated by outlets that don't "do the news well" if by well you mean with any whiff of objectivity - FOX and MSNBC. CNN is surviving by jumping on any humanitarian disaster and then milking it for all its worth.

But that's exactly the point. Just as The West Wing offered a vision of the way the government wasn't run, but should be, so this will do the same for cable news. And that's valuable. Things can't get better if everyone just points out how bad they are. Somebody has to stand up and offer a better alternative for people to believe in and work toward. That's the value of optimistic fiction. Well-done news is only a relic of the past because we've given up the will to fight for it. If we're reminded of what good journalism looks like, maybe we'll start demanding it again.

Quoted for the goddamned truth. As a journalist, this was the selling point for me. Aaron Sorkin (and HBO) were just the guarantees that it will actually be handled probably.

 

[Roger Wilco]

With Sorkin writing and this cast it almost can't be not entertaining, but I agree that the show's premise is weak.

Munn is overated.

Burn, heretic!

 

[spooky spice]

It's Sorkin. Of course I'll watch.

Tell me when and where and I'll be there.

Add me to the list with these sentiments. After Sports Night, The West Wing, and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, I will watch anything Sorkin creates.

Count me in too!

 

[stonester1]

I don't think it's unrealistic to postulate that people can be better than they currently are. I think it's unrealistic to assume they can't. There have been times in the past when television journalists like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite (and here in Cincinnati, Nick Clooney, who's better known nationally as a movie-channel host and George Clooney's father) have surrounded themselves with other good people and spearheaded capable, honest, dependable news operations. It has happened before, and it could theoretically happen again if the right people managed to end up in the right places to make it work. But only if those people, and the viewers they depend on for support, don't settle for the lazy assumption that it's impossible.

Lazy and/or cynical. When people are assholes, it's not because they have to be, it's because they choose to be. People can choose, and have chosen differently.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I recently watched all of Boston Legal, which often made much edgier and even more realistic points in spite of its far more formulaic structure.

Boston Legal's problem was they never knew what they wanted to be. There were some excellent moments of drama and there was some excellent absurdity, but they'd have both in the same episode even though one would sometimes detract from the other.

The West Wing had great big dramatic moments and lots of nice funny scenes. The show often just comes down to people being entertaining by talking fast.

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

With Sorkin writing and this cast it almost can't be not entertaining, but I agree that the show's premise is weak.

Munn is overated.

Burn, heretic!

Ehh, more of a Wilde man myself.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Ehh, more of a Wilde man myself.

Is there any chance at all that you'd be talking about Oscar?

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

Hahaha you caught me!

But nooooo, Olivia Wilde.

 

[Gaith]

I recently watched all of Boston Legal, which often made much edgier and even more realistic points in spite of its far more formulaic structure.

Boston Legal's problem was they never knew what they wanted to be. There were some excellent moments of drama and there was some excellent absurdity, but they'd have both in the same episode even though one would sometimes detract from the other.

Disagree, I think it knew exactly what it wanted to be, and that was both. It wasn't for everyone, sure, but I thought it hanged together wonderfully.

And it was hardly ever as sappy or naive as Sorkin's The West Wing almost always was.

 

[Snaploud]

Sorkin has done some amazing work (The West Wing, Sports Night, A Few Good Men, The American President, Charlie Wilson's War, and the Social Network). Studio 60, though, was a disaster from the beginning. The sketches weren't funny, and the tone seemed completely out-of-place. I hope this HBO series is closer to Sports Night or The West Wing than Studio 60.

Edit: I'm actually more looking forward to his next film: Moneyball. Though, he was re-writing a script (written by somebody else) based upon a book, and his re-write was subsequently re-written by somebody else.

 

[John Clark]

I'll certainly be tuning in to this if/when it airs over here. I've enjoyed what I've seen of his work so far

 

[the G-man]

I recently watched all of Boston Legal, which often made much edgier and even more realistic points in spite of its far more formulaic structure.

Boston Legal's problem was they never knew what they wanted to be. There were some excellent moments of drama and there was some excellent absurdity, but they'd have both in the same episode even though one would sometimes detract from the other.

Disagree, I think it knew exactly what it wanted to be...

"Boston Legal" lost me when it went from a black comedy, with Alan and Denny as gleefully sleazy attorneys out for a buck, to a moral crusader and a kindly old rascal, starring in, basically, a remake of nearly every Kelley show since "L.A. Law."