Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Shows' started by mattCR, Jul 15, 2013.
Will McAvoy and gang are back for season 2, premiered last night.
I liked that they limited much of the silly subplots that plagued season one. Someone like Mac would never advance to the position she's in while still having so many public outbursts and silly pratfalls. Looking forward to a good season.
Season 2's been getting some bad print reviews. But I don't care. I really like the show, even with all its silly subplots and pontificating.
To be fair, season 1 got some pretty bad reviews as well. Doesn't matter to me, I enjoyed the first season, and I enjoyed last night's premiere. Watching this, (or any of Sorkin's stuff really), you have to accept that it's sometimes going to be a little sappy, a little naïve, and a little idealistic. Even his best shows (The West Wing and Sports Night) had this issue. If you don't like that, there's no point in watching. Still, it's entertaining enough for me, especially when things are pretty slow during the summer months.
But anyway, personally, I thought the premiere was a slight improvement from season 1 in general. Not really enough to change my thoughts so far, but still.
I understand the whole season will revolve around the single story of the scoop that would "take down the presidency" that apparently went awry.
As long as Sorkin is writing, I'm watching.
I chalk a big chunk of that up to the media getting defensive whenever a critical eye is turned on them. They also ragged on the last season of The Wire when that show did the same thing. Aaron Sorkin has generally done very well with critics (and The Wire was a homerun with critics) but suddenly when the media becomes the group being looked at or criticized, the media feels that the show got everything wrong, the writer has lost it and the show sucks. It's pretty obvious where a portion of their problem comes from.
I'm interested in this show now that I have HBO again!
Exactly this. It's sort of fitting, actually, given Sorkin's commentary on the 24 hour news "media."
Season 1 was great, and season 2 is off to a terrific start.
The concept this season circles around flashbacks - or told entirely in a flashback I suppose - to their discovery of, and reporting of, a story that seemingly turns out to be bogus.
It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out, but I find some of the dialog this season to be extra clunky. Still, it is interesting none the less.
The habit of every character in the show to talk over another character is exhausting to watch. It's like no one ever finishes a thought. Having worked in a newsroom, I can tell you that's not authentic.
The latest episode was pretty brutal, uncommonly so for a Sorkin show. A few things to consider: Maggie's ambition and screwed-up love life is what caused that little boy to get killed. If this is the state of media in the 21st century, we'd be better off without it. But I doubt that's what the show is trying to say.
Also, Jim is way too noble a character to be realistic. Helping that other reporter get the interview at the expense of his reputation and possibly his job (he'd be fired in real life) was too much.
I think the show is firing on all cylinders. The dialogue in particular is vintage Sorkin, and the actors are doing it justice.
Last night's episode was on the money, and, while I'm probably late to the party on this one, I expect the wrongful termination lawsuit, mentioned in a typical exchange of overlapping dialogue in the season premiere, comes from Jerry Dantana, who's really been angling for a moment in the sun, and sees the story as a way to get the (fictionalized) president out of office.
I'm enjoying it, but the catch to expose Jerry's tampering with the video because of the basketball game in the background seems a bit awkward and too easy to spot. Jerry knew it was there obviously, but left himself open for the biggest of all possible crimes on the biggest possible story. Would anyone realistically take that chance?
^ The good thing about sports is that it's so rapidly edited that you probably wouldn't notice the cut if you were watching Jerry's tape. That being said, someone will undoubtedly prove Jerry's lie by comparing the game and Jerry's raw footage.
As for would he take the chance, I think some people would. He believes that he's right and that the US committed a terrible crime that should be exposed (plus, it can't hurt that the story would make him the Woodward and Bernstein of the modern day) so he'll rationalize anything he does as being for the greater good.
I'm curious to see how this story becomes untrue. There are so many separate sources and witnesses.
Since it was the recently burned OWS people who led them to them, maybe it's all being.. hoaxed and then eaten around the edges?
Are there that many though? I thought (but could be wrong) that there was really only Jerry's original source and then Jerry's (bogus) confirmation from the general. The guy on Twitter was talking about what he saw and they interpreted that to be a chemical weapon attack. Stephen Root's character (the general) was talking hypothetically because he believes in the use of chemical weapons. And I think Charlie's CIA (?) source told him it wasn't true near the beginning of the year.
Once again, I could be completely forgetting a character who did confirm the story for them.
EDIT: I should have read Matt's post before posting. I forget how the Occupy guy figures into the story. I thought that Neil's girl wouldn't help them locate him? If they did find him, what did he tell them?
There was Jerry's original source as well as the gunnery sergeant (forget his name). Then there is the manifest from the CIA guy. I forget if the gunnery sergeant was the OWS guy.
She wouldn't help them.. you're right.. it was Jerry's character who said he found him on his own and had the story from him.