[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-27 Thread RoryGoff
Have others here not liked this show, and if not, why not? My wife and I just 
watched the first season on Netflix, and we enjoyed it a lot, for the same 
reasons you give.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 OK, I know that not many here enjoy this series as much
 as I do, but I'm the only person I have to please around
 here, and I love it. 
 
 I think it's tightly written, superbly acted and directed,
 and it occasionally makes some strong and valid criticisms
 of the News and how it works...and how it sometimes fails 
 to work. All six of the previous episodes this season have 
 been leading up to last night's episode, when a seemingly 
 strong story they'd broadcast came crashing down with 
 embarrassing-to-the-network and mass-resignations-required 
 consequences. And IMO all on the team did a fine job in 
 presenting this story in these six episodes. 
 
 But -- again IMO -- all of this was preface. It was all
 leading up to a scene featuring the actress who had not
 been present so far in the season, delivering a speech
 that both Aaron Sorkin (as the writer) and her (as the
 actress delivering it) will be remembered for long after
 those who rag on The Newsroom are dead and forgotten.
 
 The owner of the fictional News network gets called out
 of a charity benefit she's dressed to the nines and paid
 a thousand bucks to attend because she wanted to meet
 Daniel Craig, who was a no-show. She's not in the best
 of moods, because she really *wanted* to meet Daniel
 Craig. And to top that off, she's stoned. Then she gets
 called into a room and told that she has to accept the
 resignations of her three most key employees at the
 network. 
 
 That's the setup. The punchline is that this woman is
 being played by Jane Fonda, one of the greatest actresses
 any of us have ever been privileged to see onscreen.
 
 My bet is that she'll be nominated for another Emmy (she
 already was, for her work in last season) for this five
 minutes of screen time. And my hope is that she wins. 
 This was as masterful a piece of acting as I have ever
 seen in my life. She literally brought tears to my eyes.
 
 Those of you who like to rag on The Newsroom can carry
 on now, carrying on. Me, I'll carry on enjoying great TV
 wherever I find it, no matter how many others don't like it.





[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-27 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote:

 I've only watched the first two episodes so far. My only
 criticisms were that the dialog seemed so frenetic, and so
 cute and witty and off-the-cuff articulate, that it seemed 
 unrealistic. Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing sucked me in
 and made me feel I was really in the White House.

Pretty much the same here, Rick. But even the super-snappy
dialogue in West Wing began to get to me after a while.

A couple years ago I was doing something in the kitchen
with the TV on. I hadn't been listening, but the audio of
a clip from some dramatic show that was being played
caught my attention. I hadn't heard it before--it wasn't
from West Wing--but I knew instantly it was a Sorkin
show because just the rhythms of the dialog were so
recognizable. Seems to me that has to be a flaw of some
sort.

 The Newsroom
 hasn't sucked me in yet. I felt I was watching something 
 unrealistic.

I've seen only the first episode and a clip from the final
episode of the first season, and it wasn't just the dialog
that was unrealistic. I wonder what folks who have actually
worked in the White House thought about West Wing in
terms of realism. I know nuttin' about working in the
White House, but I do know something about TV news 
operations, and there was stuff in the first episode and the
later clip from Newsroom that was seriously inauthentic.

Just for one thing, the station's reporting on the Gulf
disaster was portrayed wildly inaccurately: they supposedly
dug up the details of what had happened very shortly afterward
that *nobody had actually known for days and even weeks*.
And the script used that faux knowledge to beat up on other
news outlets for going with the drama of the missing crew
members instead of focusing on the environmental disaster
(which, in reality, wasn't yet evident to anybody at that 
point, but which the Newsroom folks had purportedly
uncovered within a matter of hours).

Not that the news media totally covered itself with glory
in its reporting on the Gulf spill, but this portrayal was
just below the belt, IMHO. Nobody who watched this episode
who hadn't followed the Gulf story pretty closely would
have any reason to suspect that the news media had not, in
fact, disgraced itself in the early days of the catastrophe
by not doing the necessary investigation.

Still pisses me off. If you're going to re-create a very
recent major event for a mass audience, you need to take
significant pains to do it accurately rather than
distorting it for the sake of the drama. Otherwise your
grossly mangled version is likely to become the common
wisdom.




RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-27 Thread Rick Archer
Good observations on the show's portrayal of the BP Oil disaster. I was
thinknig that while watching the show, but that was a couple of months ago,
so I had forgotten that reaction. We'll probably try another episode now and
then when there's nothing else to watch, but these days, everything pales in
comparison to Breaking Bad.

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:50 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@...
mailto:rick@...  wrote:

 I've only watched the first two episodes so far. My only
 criticisms were that the dialog seemed so frenetic, and so
 cute and witty and off-the-cuff articulate, that it seemed 
 unrealistic. Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing sucked me in
 and made me feel I was really in the White House.

Pretty much the same here, Rick. But even the super-snappy
dialogue in West Wing began to get to me after a while.

A couple years ago I was doing something in the kitchen
with the TV on. I hadn't been listening, but the audio of
a clip from some dramatic show that was being played
caught my attention. I hadn't heard it before--it wasn't
from West Wing--but I knew instantly it was a Sorkin
show because just the rhythms of the dialog were so
recognizable. Seems to me that has to be a flaw of some
sort.

 The Newsroom
 hasn't sucked me in yet. I felt I was watching something 
 unrealistic.

I've seen only the first episode and a clip from the final
episode of the first season, and it wasn't just the dialog
that was unrealistic. I wonder what folks who have actually
worked in the White House thought about West Wing in
terms of realism. I know nuttin' about working in the
White House, but I do know something about TV news 
operations, and there was stuff in the first episode and the
later clip from Newsroom that was seriously inauthentic.

Just for one thing, the station's reporting on the Gulf
disaster was portrayed wildly inaccurately: they supposedly
dug up the details of what had happened very shortly afterward
that *nobody had actually known for days and even weeks*.
And the script used that faux knowledge to beat up on other
news outlets for going with the drama of the missing crew
members instead of focusing on the environmental disaster
(which, in reality, wasn't yet evident to anybody at that 
point, but which the Newsroom folks had purportedly
uncovered within a matter of hours).

Not that the news media totally covered itself with glory
in its reporting on the Gulf spill, but this portrayal was
just below the belt, IMHO. Nobody who watched this episode
who hadn't followed the Gulf story pretty closely would
have any reason to suspect that the news media had not, in
fact, disgraced itself in the early days of the catastrophe
by not doing the necessary investigation.

Still pisses me off. If you're going to re-create a very
recent major event for a mass audience, you need to take
significant pains to do it accurately rather than
distorting it for the sake of the drama. Otherwise your
grossly mangled version is likely to become the common
wisdom.





[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-27 Thread Alex Stanley

Yabut, the science on Breaking Bad isn't realistic!

http://youtu.be/6ncwzVmE5IM http://youtu.be/6ncwzVmE5IM




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer  wrote:

 Good observations on the show's portrayal of the BP Oil disaster. I
was
 thinknig that while watching the show, but that was a couple of months
ago,
 so I had forgotten that reaction. We'll probably try another episode
now and
 then when there's nothing else to watch, but these days, everything
pales in
 comparison to Breaking Bad.



 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
 On Behalf Of authfriend
 Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:50 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III





 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  , Rick Archer rick@
  wrote:
 
  I've only watched the first two episodes so far. My only
  criticisms were that the dialog seemed so frenetic, and so
  cute and witty and off-the-cuff articulate, that it seemed
  unrealistic. Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing sucked me in
  and made me feel I was really in the White House.

 Pretty much the same here, Rick. But even the super-snappy
 dialogue in West Wing began to get to me after a while.

 A couple years ago I was doing something in the kitchen
 with the TV on. I hadn't been listening, but the audio of
 a clip from some dramatic show that was being played
 caught my attention. I hadn't heard it before--it wasn't
 from West Wing--but I knew instantly it was a Sorkin
 show because just the rhythms of the dialog were so
 recognizable. Seems to me that has to be a flaw of some
 sort.

  The Newsroom
  hasn't sucked me in yet. I felt I was watching something
  unrealistic.

 I've seen only the first episode and a clip from the final
 episode of the first season, and it wasn't just the dialog
 that was unrealistic. I wonder what folks who have actually
 worked in the White House thought about West Wing in
 terms of realism. I know nuttin' about working in the
 White House, but I do know something about TV news
 operations, and there was stuff in the first episode and the
 later clip from Newsroom that was seriously inauthentic.

 Just for one thing, the station's reporting on the Gulf
 disaster was portrayed wildly inaccurately: they supposedly
 dug up the details of what had happened very shortly afterward
 that *nobody had actually known for days and even weeks*.
 And the script used that faux knowledge to beat up on other
 news outlets for going with the drama of the missing crew
 members instead of focusing on the environmental disaster
 (which, in reality, wasn't yet evident to anybody at that
 point, but which the Newsroom folks had purportedly
 uncovered within a matter of hours).

 Not that the news media totally covered itself with glory
 in its reporting on the Gulf spill, but this portrayal was
 just below the belt, IMHO. Nobody who watched this episode
 who hadn't followed the Gulf story pretty closely would
 have any reason to suspect that the news media had not, in
 fact, disgraced itself in the early days of the catastrophe
 by not doing the necessary investigation.

 Still pisses me off. If you're going to re-create a very
 recent major event for a mass audience, you need to take
 significant pains to do it accurately rather than
 distorting it for the sake of the drama. Otherwise your
 grossly mangled version is likely to become the common
 wisdom.




RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-27 Thread Rick Archer
 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:13 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

 

  

Yabut, the science on Breaking Bad isn't realistic! 

http://youtu.be/6ncwzVmE5IM 

Yabut, I don't think Breaking Bad is trying to be completely realistic. I
presume the Newsroom is.



[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-27 Thread ultrarishi


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 OK, I know that not many here enjoy this series as much
 as I do, but I'm the only person I have to please around
 here, and I love it. 
 
 I think it's tightly written, superbly acted and directed,
 and it occasionally makes some strong and valid criticisms
 of the News and how it works...and how it sometimes fails 
 to work. All six of the previous episodes this season have 
 been leading up to last night's episode, when a seemingly 
 strong story they'd broadcast came crashing down with 
 embarrassing-to-the-network and mass-resignations-required 
 consequences. And IMO all on the team did a fine job in 
 presenting this story in these six episodes. 
 
 But -- again IMO -- all of this was preface. It was all
 leading up to a scene featuring the actress who had not
 been present so far in the season, delivering a speech
 that both Aaron Sorkin (as the writer) and her (as the
 actress delivering it) will be remembered for long after
 those who rag on The Newsroom are dead and forgotten.
 
 The owner of the fictional News network gets called out
 of a charity benefit she's dressed to the nines and paid
 a thousand bucks to attend because she wanted to meet
 Daniel Craig, who was a no-show. She's not in the best
 of moods, because she really *wanted* to meet Daniel
 Craig. And to top that off, she's stoned. Then she gets
 called into a room and told that she has to accept the
 resignations of her three most key employees at the
 network. 
 
 That's the setup. The punchline is that this woman is
 being played by Jane Fonda, one of the greatest actresses
 any of us have ever been privileged to see onscreen.
 
 My bet is that she'll be nominated for another Emmy (she
 already was, for her work in last season) for this five
 minutes of screen time. And my hope is that she wins. 
 This was as masterful a piece of acting as I have ever
 seen in my life. She literally brought tears to my eyes.
 
 Those of you who like to rag on The Newsroom can carry
 on now, carrying on. Me, I'll carry on enjoying great TV
 wherever I find it, no matter how many others don't like i

Our household members are very big fans of The Newsroom and enjoyed this last 
episode immensely.  While this drama may not be all that accurate a portrayal 
of how newsrooms work, it does make the point very wall that behind the camera 
are real people with real lives.  These lives are full of drama and 
imperfections just like the subjects they cover and this can color how things 
can get reported (or ignored or suppressed).

I like how the character of Will McAvoy is used to push things always back to 
the center when there's an axe to grind in either the left or right.

I agree that some of the dialog is frenetic and even forced, but I think 
they're trying to cram 90 minutes of drama into a 60 minute format. That pace 
can be a bit much and I find we are rewinding certain scenes once in a while to 
make sure we got what was being telegraphed.  The dialog is outstanding, but 
occasionally too smart for its own good.  I hate that, but it's way ahead of a 
lot of the drek in sitcoms.

This season feels like a homage to Dan Rather with the setup he fell into 
around his investigation into W that ended his stint on the CBS Evening News.  
ACN is trolled by someone with an agenda other than telling the truth.  CBS was 
given so called vetted documents on Lt. Bush's record. Thus, the newsroom and 
the reporters become story.  The fallout of such a troll is the proverbial 
chilling effect.  Cheney Bush were great at this, and sadly, Obama and Holder 
are following suit with their blatant intimidation of reporters.  As an aside, 
I would expect the same if not worse from a Romney Presidency, but I am very 
disappointed in Mr. Change We Can Believe In.


Also, these season has done a great job of characterizing how political 
campaign reporters are reduced to readers of press statements from spin 
meisters.

Yeah... Sorkin is preaching to the choir, but I love his music.


 







[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-26 Thread obbajeeba


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 OK, I know that not many here enjoy this series as much
 as I do, but I'm the only person I have to please around
 here, and I love it. 
 
What many? You blocked view, of most everyone's posting and refuse to 
converse with most anyone who actually is listening, but again, you are only 
pleasing yourself by typing it on the FFL Yahoo Group Message Board and you 
love it. 
I read your post. I listen, but I am not the audience you wish to be concerned 
if I am listening (we do not hear type written word and thank god for that. 
Turq's voice droning over and over in a mono tone B flat.)  to my music as I 
read your post to yourself, I guess, I am still listening. 
Have a nice time and thank you for the tip of the series. Will check it out. 
Just wanted you to realize it may be best not to type drunk.


 I think it's tightly written, superbly acted and directed,
 and it occasionally makes some strong and valid criticisms
 of the News and how it works...and how it sometimes fails 
 to work. All six of the previous episodes this season have 
 been leading up to last night's episode, when a seemingly 
 strong story they'd broadcast came crashing down with 
 embarrassing-to-the-network and mass-resignations-required 
 consequences. And IMO all on the team did a fine job in 
 presenting this story in these six episodes. 
 
 But -- again IMO -- all of this was preface. It was all
 leading up to a scene featuring the actress who had not
 been present so far in the season, delivering a speech
 that both Aaron Sorkin (as the writer) and her (as the
 actress delivering it) will be remembered for long after
 those who rag on The Newsroom are dead and forgotten.
 
 The owner of the fictional News network gets called out
 of a charity benefit she's dressed to the nines and paid
 a thousand bucks to attend because she wanted to meet
 Daniel Craig, who was a no-show. She's not in the best
 of moods, because she really *wanted* to meet Daniel
 Craig. And to top that off, she's stoned. Then she gets
 called into a room and told that she has to accept the
 resignations of her three most key employees at the
 network. 
 
 That's the setup. The punchline is that this woman is
 being played by Jane Fonda, one of the greatest actresses
 any of us have ever been privileged to see onscreen.
 
 My bet is that she'll be nominated for another Emmy (she
 already was, for her work in last season) for this five
 minutes of screen time. And my hope is that she wins. 
 This was as masterful a piece of acting as I have ever
 seen in my life. She literally brought tears to my eyes.
 
 Those of you who like to rag on The Newsroom can carry
 on now, carrying on. Me, I'll carry on enjoying great TV
 wherever I find it, no matter how many others don't like it.





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-26 Thread Bhairitu
Turq's original post on Newsroom has yet to show up via email or it's 
stuck in the Yahoo Mail spam bin.  I've been watching the series but 
this may be the last episode I watch for awhile or until October.  
Comcast is encrypting Limited Basic starting October first rendering my 
computer TV tuners useless.  Of course Newsroom is HBO and my promo 
ran out last month so I'm paying Comcast's ridiculous full price for 
it.  So HBO gets canceled this week.  And towards the end of the month 
Comcast will be kicked out of this house entirely either being replaced 
by U-Verse or no TV except streaming. U-Verse's 12 month month promo 
will save me a lot of money over Comcast.  And I'm sure I'm not the only 
one in the area canceling Comcast.


My only problem with Newsroom is that I read a lot of political stuff 
over the week so a fictional show about it is not that compelling.  It's 
a well crafted show but I usually get around to watching the recording 
of the current episode later in the week. The news itself is a much 
better show.


I've become a fan of Ray Donovan which follows Dexter.  The latter 
has only three episodes left of the series.  Then there's the great 
Lennie James in the AMC series which follows Breaking Bad.  It's about 
a couple of bad cops trying to cover their tracks to their murder of 
another bad cop.  And of course Talking Bad where last night Samuel L 
Jackson and the actor who plays Saul were guests last night.  Talking 
Bad is a Breaking Bad fan show follow-up.



On 08/26/2013 08:21 AM, obbajeeba wrote:




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:


 OK, I know that not many here enjoy this series as much
 as I do, but I'm the only person I have to please around
 here, and I love it.

What many? You blocked view, of most everyone's posting and refuse 
to converse with most anyone who actually is listening, but again, you 
are only pleasing yourself by typing it on the FFL Yahoo Group Message 
Board and you love it.
I read your post. I listen, but I am not the audience you wish to be 
concerned if I am listening (we do not hear type written word and 
thank god for that. Turq's voice droning over and over in a mono tone 
B flat.) to my music as I read your post to yourself, I guess, I am 
still listening.
Have a nice time and thank you for the tip of the series. Will check 
it out. Just wanted you to realize it may be best not to type drunk.


 I think it's tightly written, superbly acted and directed,
 and it occasionally makes some strong and valid criticisms
 of the News and how it works...and how it sometimes fails
 to work. All six of the previous episodes this season have
 been leading up to last night's episode, when a seemingly
 strong story they'd broadcast came crashing down with
 embarrassing-to-the-network and mass-resignations-required
 consequences. And IMO all on the team did a fine job in
 presenting this story in these six episodes.

 But -- again IMO -- all of this was preface. It was all
 leading up to a scene featuring the actress who had not
 been present so far in the season, delivering a speech
 that both Aaron Sorkin (as the writer) and her (as the
 actress delivering it) will be remembered for long after
 those who rag on The Newsroom are dead and forgotten.

 The owner of the fictional News network gets called out
 of a charity benefit she's dressed to the nines and paid
 a thousand bucks to attend because she wanted to meet
 Daniel Craig, who was a no-show. She's not in the best
 of moods, because she really *wanted* to meet Daniel
 Craig. And to top that off, she's stoned. Then she gets
 called into a room and told that she has to accept the
 resignations of her three most key employees at the
 network.

 That's the setup. The punchline is that this woman is
 being played by Jane Fonda, one of the greatest actresses
 any of us have ever been privileged to see onscreen.

 My bet is that she'll be nominated for another Emmy (she
 already was, for her work in last season) for this five
 minutes of screen time. And my hope is that she wins.
 This was as masterful a piece of acting as I have ever
 seen in my life. She literally brought tears to my eyes.

 Those of you who like to rag on The Newsroom can carry
 on now, carrying on. Me, I'll carry on enjoying great TV
 wherever I find it, no matter how many others don't like it.







[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-26 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  Have others here not liked this show, and if not, why 
  not? My wife and I just watched the first season on 
  Netflix, and we enjoyed it a lot, for the same reasons 
  you give.
 
 Back when the series started, I wrote positively about
 it, so there is a certain contingent here who felt the
 need to dump on it simply because I liked it. And, as
 we have seen here before, I would bet that many of 
 those who did so have never seen a full single episode. 
 Should any of them chime in, ask that question of them 
 directly, and see whether they'll admit that they got 
 pretty much all of their supposed criticisms from other
 people's reviews.

(Rory, remember what I just said about Barry doing it
to himself?)

I did watch the entire first episode, as Barry would know
if he actually read my posts, ;-) and I posted my own
review of it, plus an analysis of how it had handled one
of its big plot points. If you want to read the posts,
Rory:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/313208

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/313140

Later, I also made some comments on a clip Barry had posted
from the last episode of the first season:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/318505

(The first episode and that clip were more than enough;
I haven't been tempted to watch any more of it.)

And back at the beginning, I made two posts analyzing
Barry's conspiracy theory (which he echoes below) as to
why some of the initial reviews were negative:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/313121

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/313016

I became allergic to Aaron Sorkin some time back, for a
variety of reasons. I loved West Wing at first, but Sorkin's
writing style eventually began to wear on me; and I really
can't abide his frequent lack of concern for authenticity
(see the second and third of the posts I listed above).

This is funny:

 ...my early prediction of the
 series' quality being rewarded with several Emmy 
 nominations came to pass. I imagine that the people
 mentioned in my first paragraph found that particularly
 galling.  :-)

Barry is second to none at imagining that other people
suffer from his own petty quirks. ;-)





 That said, there *were* a lot of criticisms of the show
 in the media, mainly IMO *from* members of the media,
 who didn't like their foibles presented so accurately
 onscreen. Some envy Aaron Sorkin his success, and others
 envy him his writing ability, so the bottom line of a 
 lot of the criticism is, again IMO, envy. 
 
 The silliest of the criticisms have to do with the
 characters of the primary women in the series. So-
 called feminists complained that they weren't treated
 seriously. As if women in *any* workplace in America
 *are* treated as seriously as they deserve to be. I
 personally think that many of the women in the series
 are presented as being strong, but at the same time
 capable of love and stupidity and the ability to make
 dumb decisions w.r.t. love from time to time. To me,
 that's a *compassionate* portrayal, putting them on
 an equal pedestal of capability/stupidity as their 
 male counterparts. :-)
 
 The worst of the media criticisms are veiled attempts
 to create a furor of supposed dislike for the series,
 in an attempt to get an obviously left-leaning series
 canceled. That failed, and my early prediction of the
 series' quality being rewarded with several Emmy 
 nominations came to pass. I imagine that the people
 mentioned in my first paragraph found that particularly
 galling.  :-)
 
 Me, I just enjoy snappy dialogue, at which Sorkin and
 his team of writers are masters, and I like complex
 characters who foil attempts to pigeonhole them, of
 which there are many in this series. Yes, it's main-
 stream television, and thus must walk that fine line
 between being entertaining to the masses and actually
 saying something, but I think it's managed that quite
 successfully. 
 
 Glad to hear you liked it. It's one of my Monday morning
 automatic downloads from the previous Sunday night, US
 time, along with Dexter, True Blood (now over for the
 season), Breaking Bad, and (thanks to you reminding me
 about it) Copper.
 
 When it comes to Jane Fonda, I have a particular affection
 for her because I discovered her early, long before she 
 gained recognition in the US as anything but another 
 example of Hollywood nepotism. After a couple of fluff
 movies in the US, she moved to France, took up with Roger
 Vadim, and starred in one of his films called (in English
 translation) The Game Is Over (a remake of Émile Zola's
 La curée. I was transfixed. I went back to see it 
 several nights in a row, and started telling all of 
 my film school buddies, This woman is a STAR! 
 
 Three years later came her first recognized performance, 
 in They Shoot Horses, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-26 Thread Richard J. Williams


  Those of you who like to rag on The Newsroom can carry
  on now, carrying on. Me, I'll carry on enjoying great TV
  wherever I find it, no matter how many others don't like 
  it.
 
authfriend:
 Uh, Barrykins, the most recent post expressing any negativity
 about Newsroom was almost exactly a year ago.

No wonder it took so long to get to Barry2's computer.



[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-26 Thread RoryGoff

Ha! Yeah, I didn't eve know Jane Fonda was in the series, and didn't recognize 
her immediately when she first appeared, and so was both surprised and 
delighted in the apparently right-wing role she played so convincingly.

Thanks for your well-thought-out review of the show ... I also liked West Wing 
and -- what was the name of that short-lived one of Sorkin's? Studio 61? 
Breaking Bad I love, having just finished the first 8 episodes of the last 
season, and still waiting for Netflix to give us the final batch.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  Have others here not liked this show, and if not, why 
  not? My wife and I just watched the first season on 
  Netflix, and we enjoyed it a lot, for the same reasons 
  you give.
 
 Back when the series started, I wrote positively about
 it, so there is a certain contingent here who felt the
 need to dump on it simply because I liked it. And, as
 we have seen here before, I would bet that many of 
 those who did so have never seen a full single episode. 
 Should any of them chime in, ask that question of them 
 directly, and see whether they'll admit that they got 
 pretty much all of their supposed criticisms from other
 people's reviews.
 
 That said, there *were* a lot of criticisms of the show
 in the media, mainly IMO *from* members of the media,
 who didn't like their foibles presented so accurately
 onscreen. Some envy Aaron Sorkin his success, and others
 envy him his writing ability, so the bottom line of a 
 lot of the criticism is, again IMO, envy. 
 
 The silliest of the criticisms have to do with the
 characters of the primary women in the series. So-
 called feminists complained that they weren't treated
 seriously. As if women in *any* workplace in America
 *are* treated as seriously as they deserve to be. I
 personally think that many of the women in the series
 are presented as being strong, but at the same time
 capable of love and stupidity and the ability to make
 dumb decisions w.r.t. love from time to time. To me,
 that's a *compassionate* portrayal, putting them on
 an equal pedestal of capability/stupidity as their 
 male counterparts. :-)
 
 The worst of the media criticisms are veiled attempts
 to create a furor of supposed dislike for the series,
 in an attempt to get an obviously left-leaning series
 canceled. That failed, and my early prediction of the
 series' quality being rewarded with several Emmy 
 nominations came to pass. I imagine that the people
 mentioned in my first paragraph found that particularly
 galling.  :-)
 
 Me, I just enjoy snappy dialogue, at which Sorkin and
 his team of writers are masters, and I like complex
 characters who foil attempts to pigeonhole them, of
 which there are many in this series. Yes, it's main-
 stream television, and thus must walk that fine line
 between being entertaining to the masses and actually
 saying something, but I think it's managed that quite
 successfully. 
 
 Glad to hear you liked it. It's one of my Monday morning
 automatic downloads from the previous Sunday night, US
 time, along with Dexter, True Blood (now over for the
 season), Breaking Bad, and (thanks to you reminding me
 about it) Copper.
 
 When it comes to Jane Fonda, I have a particular affection
 for her because I discovered her early, long before she 
 gained recognition in the US as anything but another 
 example of Hollywood nepotism. After a couple of fluff
 movies in the US, she moved to France, took up with Roger
 Vadim, and starred in one of his films called (in English
 translation) The Game Is Over (a remake of Émile Zola's
 La curée. I was transfixed. I went back to see it 
 several nights in a row, and started telling all of 
 my film school buddies, This woman is a STAR! 
 
 Three years later came her first recognized performance, 
 in They Shoot Horses, Don't They? and then three years
 after that, her first Oscar-winning role in Klute. I
 have been missing her onscreen presence for some time, so
 it is a real joy for me to see her not only take on a plum
 role like this one, but knock it out of the park. 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   OK, I know that not many here enjoy this series as much
   as I do, but I'm the only person I have to please around
   here, and I love it. 
   
   I think it's tightly written, superbly acted and directed,
   and it occasionally makes some strong and valid criticisms
   of the News and how it works...and how it sometimes fails 
   to work. All six of the previous episodes this season have 
   been leading up to last night's episode, when a seemingly 
   strong story they'd broadcast came crashing down with 
   embarrassing-to-the-network and mass-resignations-required 
   consequences. And IMO all on the team did a fine job in 
   presenting this story in these six episodes. 
   
   But -- again IMO -- all of 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-26 Thread turquoiseb
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 Have others here not liked this show, and if not, why 
 not? My wife and I just watched the first season on 
 Netflix, and we enjoyed it a lot, for the same reasons 
 you give.

Back when the series started, I wrote positively about
it, so there is a certain contingent here who felt the
need to dump on it simply because I liked it. And, as
we have seen here before, I would bet that many of 
those who did so have never seen a full single episode. 
Should any of them chime in, ask that question of them 
directly, and see whether they'll admit that they got 
pretty much all of their supposed criticisms from other
people's reviews.

That said, there *were* a lot of criticisms of the show
in the media, mainly IMO *from* members of the media,
who didn't like their foibles presented so accurately
onscreen. Some envy Aaron Sorkin his success, and others
envy him his writing ability, so the bottom line of a 
lot of the criticism is, again IMO, envy. 

The silliest of the criticisms have to do with the
characters of the primary women in the series. So-
called feminists complained that they weren't treated
seriously. As if women in *any* workplace in America
*are* treated as seriously as they deserve to be. I
personally think that many of the women in the series
are presented as being strong, but at the same time
capable of love and stupidity and the ability to make
dumb decisions w.r.t. love from time to time. To me,
that's a *compassionate* portrayal, putting them on
an equal pedestal of capability/stupidity as their 
male counterparts. :-)

The worst of the media criticisms are veiled attempts
to create a furor of supposed dislike for the series,
in an attempt to get an obviously left-leaning series
canceled. That failed, and my early prediction of the
series' quality being rewarded with several Emmy 
nominations came to pass. I imagine that the people
mentioned in my first paragraph found that particularly
galling.  :-)

Me, I just enjoy snappy dialogue, at which Sorkin and
his team of writers are masters, and I like complex
characters who foil attempts to pigeonhole them, of
which there are many in this series. Yes, it's main-
stream television, and thus must walk that fine line
between being entertaining to the masses and actually
saying something, but I think it's managed that quite
successfully. 

Glad to hear you liked it. It's one of my Monday morning
automatic downloads from the previous Sunday night, US
time, along with Dexter, True Blood (now over for the
season), Breaking Bad, and (thanks to you reminding me
about it) Copper.

When it comes to Jane Fonda, I have a particular affection
for her because I discovered her early, long before she 
gained recognition in the US as anything but another 
example of Hollywood nepotism. After a couple of fluff
movies in the US, she moved to France, took up with Roger
Vadim, and starred in one of his films called (in English
translation) The Game Is Over (a remake of Émile Zola's
La curée. I was transfixed. I went back to see it 
several nights in a row, and started telling all of 
my film school buddies, This woman is a STAR! 

Three years later came her first recognized performance, 
in They Shoot Horses, Don't They? and then three years
after that, her first Oscar-winning role in Klute. I
have been missing her onscreen presence for some time, so
it is a real joy for me to see her not only take on a plum
role like this one, but knock it out of the park. 


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  OK, I know that not many here enjoy this series as much
  as I do, but I'm the only person I have to please around
  here, and I love it. 
  
  I think it's tightly written, superbly acted and directed,
  and it occasionally makes some strong and valid criticisms
  of the News and how it works...and how it sometimes fails 
  to work. All six of the previous episodes this season have 
  been leading up to last night's episode, when a seemingly 
  strong story they'd broadcast came crashing down with 
  embarrassing-to-the-network and mass-resignations-required 
  consequences. And IMO all on the team did a fine job in 
  presenting this story in these six episodes. 
  
  But -- again IMO -- all of this was preface. It was all
  leading up to a scene featuring the actress who had not
  been present so far in the season, delivering a speech
  that both Aaron Sorkin (as the writer) and her (as the
  actress delivering it) will be remembered for long after
  those who rag on The Newsroom are dead and forgotten.
  
  The owner of the fictional News network gets called out
  of a charity benefit she's dressed to the nines and paid
  a thousand bucks to attend because she wanted to meet
  Daniel Craig, who was a no-show. She's not in the best
  of moods, because she really *wanted* to meet Daniel
  Craig. And to top that off, she's stoned. Then she gets
  called into a room and told 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Newsroom: Red Team III

2013-08-26 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 Those of you who like to rag on The Newsroom can carry
 on now, carrying on. Me, I'll carry on enjoying great TV
 wherever I find it, no matter how many others don't like it.

Uh, Barrykins, the most recent post expressing any negativity
about Newsroom was almost exactly a year ago.