Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Allison Pill's eyes are too small for her face.
And her lipstick is too red.
And her clothing is too ugly.
And he character is too shitty.
I really like Allison Pill, you guys.
The concept of spending time watching something you hate to the point of writing multiple paragraph diatribes against it is so alien to me. Are you being forced by someone?
Let's go through it though, since I have time to kill.
You don't like the acting. Subjective but fine. I disagree, at least for the majority of the cast but I can see your point.
You don't like the writing. Care to offer an example other than one where the show actually followed your suggestion? Or an episode where the "exposition" (I'm using quotes because what the characters were doing there was not exposition) is actually the device by which the story is told?
Now as for the HBO look. Other than the titties how does Boradwalk Empire look like Luck or Treme or GOT or Veep or whatever?
Oh shit I have no time after all. Bye.
Despite the fact that you 'don't have time', I'll answer these questions for anyone else who actually wants to discuss and critique this show, which I figured was the whole purpose of, you know, a website like this.
I said in my first sentence that the show is entertaining, which is why I keep watching it. The concept of watching something that frustrates you, even to the point of despising it, might be alien to you, but there are plenty of works of art/entertainment which fail in such an interesting way that the viewer feels they're worth their time. I thought Promethues (to use an example that was brought up earlier) was a terrible film, but I'll recommend it (and I plan to watch it again at some point) because it's terrible in a way that makes you look at it closely. This is the same reason that I wrote multiple paragraphs is because I figured this was a discussion about the show. Next time I'll just spew out quick, smug invective along the lines of 'This show blows and people who disagree with me are dumb'. That seems to be the level of discourse you're encouraging.
As to the writing, I offered numerous examples in my paragraph. Every character and emotional beat is spoken aloud by a character. Almost every character at one point or another has their entire backstory run down, almost always by Will in some meeting. As far as episodes where the exposition is the device through which the story is told, there's the example I already gave. The episode with Fonda, where the four characaters rehash everything that's happened over the course of the last few weeks. It's set up like a review board similiar to the ones in The Social Network, but unlike in that film it makes no sense because all of the characters already know everything that's happened. So you get lines like "And then three weeks ago, what was it will said about the Koch brothers?" delivered by a character who already knows what was said. And then Sam Waterson answers the question, and then we flashback to the scene, and then at the end of the scene Sam Waterson explains the character motivations, even though they were already clear within the action itself. Two weeks ago used a simlair device with the shrink, but it wasn't as egregious. Lots of shows and films use therapy sessions to tell their stories (including one of the best ever, The Sopranos). But here it felt suddenly shoehorned in, because it's an exposition device and Sorkin is an exposition machine.
And in the other examples I listed, the characters absolutely are doing exposition. The whole character arc of Don on the airplane is him wanting to get off and report the news. Then he has his catharsis, and tells the pilots. There, he's reported the news, we all would have got that. We don't need him turning around and saying, just in case we missed it "We reported the news". That is exposition of theme, and this show does it all the time. It's bad writing by every conceivable standards. Not everything needs to be super-subtle, but this takes things too far. It's like the scene in the Wire where D teaches his crew to play chess. It's not the most subtle scene, but at least he doesn't stop at the end of it and say (to quote that Funny or Die musical sketch) "Chess is a metaphor for drugs."
As far as the show not seeming like an HBO show, again, I ran down my list of reasons. I never said it didn't LOOK like an HBO show, I said it doesn't feel like one. It's too ham-handed, it's too earnest and it's characters are too conventional. And I'm not even saying that HBO shows should fit a particular format or style, one of the reasons Boardwalk Empire fails (or did in its first season, I haven't watched any of last season) is because it felt like it was hitting all of the beats a show like that is supposed to hit, but with nothing going on underneath its surface. Newsroom doesn't have anything going on underneath either, but that's because it puts everything upfront all of the time. I will credit it that its intent is at least shooting for something bigger.
But therein lies the thing that makes it fail, in its scope. The show posits that if a news show like this existed, it would help restore the public discourse. Except that News Night is clearly modeled on Countdown with Keith Olberman. Watching the segments where Will is on air, his style is exactly the same as hacks like Olberman and Maddow, both of whom have news shows on air, and yet look: the public discourse isn't any better. The entirety of MSNBC spent a ton of time fighting the Tea Party, yet this show acts like Will is the only one brave enough to stand up to them. It's ridiculous.
Anyway, sorry again for actually engaging in conversation. What I meant to say was this show is gay and you guys are all gay if you disagree.
What I said about having time and then not having time wasn't any sort of joke or sarcasm, guys. I thought I had time but an alarm went off and reminded me I had to go to a job interview across town. Sometimes people actually write what they mean you know.
But hey, if you want to take me explaining why my post was so short as an insult go ahead.
Hey, don't blame us. The rest of your post is concise enough that it's impossible not to read that last sentence as sarcasm.
I'm so tired of the "if you don't like something just stop watching it" argument. It's like people honestly don't understand the concept of people taking pleasure from viewing, thinking, analyzing and criticizing something, even if they ultimately find the material lacking. That's been a part of culture since the beginning of art.
Most of the movies I watch I don't like. But I love watching movies. Not just watching them, but thinking about them, analyzing them, discussing them, criticizing them. And I'm not talking about taking them apart piece by piece; criticizing all aspects of it, what worked and what doesn't, what resonates and what failed to. I try not to simply lump movies, shows, books, music into black and white categories of "good" and "bad." I evaluate their worth, what they're saying and the effectiveness of how they're saying what they're saying. The practice of doing so is one of my favorite things in the world, if not the favorite.
I especially find it strange when people bust out this argument on a message board built mostly around film/TV discussion. You might as well be saying "the only thing I want to hear is praise for what I like. If you don't like something, move along." So boring.
Amen, Parker. Amen.
I'm so tired of the "if you don't like something just stop watching it" argument. It's like people honestly don't understand the concept of people taking pleasure from viewing, thinking, analyzing and criticizing something, even if they ultimately find the material lacking. That's been a part of culture since the beginning of art.
Most of the movies I watch I don't like. But I love watching movies. Not just watching them, but thinking about them, analyzing them, discussing them, criticizing them. And I'm not talking about taking them apart piece by piece; criticizing all aspects of it, what worked and what doesn't, what resonates and what failed to. I try not to simply lump movies, shows, books, music into black and white categories of "good" and "bad." I evaluate their worth, what they're saying and the effectiveness of how they're saying what they're saying. The practice of doing so is one of my favorite things in the world, if not the favorite.
I especially find it strange when people bust out this argument on a message board built mostly around film/TV discussion. You might as well be saying "the only thing I want to hear is praise for what I like. If you don't like something, move along." So boring.
Exactly. And how many people would accuse you of "judging a book by its cover" if you didn't watch it or finish it, yet still had criticisms of it? I have gotten that a lot in the past from the many people in my life that scream at me for being "too much of a critic!" Extreme example, but I used to blast Twilight all the time. Several people would say "have you read it? no? well then you don't really have a right to criticize it". No matter how right I feel I may be, so are they for calling me out. I can't claim to be critical of several forms of media, but form an opinion founded on very little to no information.
If you are actively watching or reading or playing something, then I believe you have right to bitch as much as you want about it. Especially if it's engaging conversation.
I'm so tired of the "if you don't like something just stop watching it" argument. It's like people honestly don't understand the concept of people taking pleasure from viewing, thinking, analyzing and criticizing something, even if they ultimately find the material lacking. That's been a part of culture since the beginning of art.
Most of the movies I watch I don't like. But I love watching movies. Not just watching them, but thinking about them, analyzing them, discussing them, criticizing them. And I'm not talking about taking them apart piece by piece; criticizing all aspects of it, what worked and what doesn't, what resonates and what failed to. I try not to simply lump movies, shows, books, music into black and white categories of "good" and "bad." I evaluate their worth, what they're saying and the effectiveness of how they're saying what they're saying. The practice of doing so is one of my favorite things in the world, if not the favorite.
I especially find it strange when people bust out this argument on a message board built mostly around film/TV discussion. You might as well be saying "the only thing I want to hear is praise for what I like. If you don't like something, move along." So boring.
My objection was with the concept of "hate-watching." Not criticism. It is a pretty strongly worded statement. And one that implies prejudice. A prejudice that may not have been present at the beginning but is now. Take for example my reaction to The Killing and Falling Skies. I went in with the best of intentions. I followed them for a sufficiently long period. I criticised their shortcomings. I saw they were persistent and not about to be adressed. I moved on. Is this an intellectualy lazy thing to do? Should I have carried on, only to be frustrated by the same things time and time again? Wouldn't that be more boring than simply me trying a new show or a new book instead? And sticking on with a show that has a clear and obvious agenda like The Newsroom while criticising it again and again for sticking to it seems wasteful to me. This show's entrire purpose is for Sorkin to vent his grudges and preach to the choir. It is clear by now. Unless you're waiting for him to change his mind. And you don't have to stick through the entirety of something, especially something as long form as a TV show in order to make a final judgement on it. This isn't a two hour self-contained movie.
And do you watch movies you don't like multiple times? Do you read books you don't like multiple times?
But your response to hate watching was to my post about "hate"watching. I put the term in quotes for a reason, and then went on to explain that I found the show engaging at the same time that I found it a failure. Perhaps my intent in quoting the term hatewatching wasn't clear, but my overall intent should have been by the second sentence. Anyway, suffice to say, I agree with Parker.
My objection was with the concept of "hate-watching." Not criticism. It is a pretty strongly worded statement. And one that implies prejudice. A prejudice that may not have been present at the beginning but is now. Take for example my reaction to The Killing and Falling Skies. I went in with the best of intentions. I followed them for a sufficiently long period. I criticized their shortcomings. I saw they were persistent and not about to be addressed. I moved on. Is this an intellectualy lazy thing to do? Should I have carried on, only to be frustrated by the same things time and time again? Wouldn't that be more boring than simply me trying a new show or a new book instead? And sticking on with a show that has a clear and obvious agenda like The Newsroom while criticising it again and again for sticking to it seems wasteful to me. This show's entrire purpose is for Sorkin to vent his grudges and preach to the choir. It is clear by now. Unless you're waiting for him to change his mind. And you don't have to stick through the entirety of something, especially something as long form as a TV show in order to make a final judgement on it. This isn't a two hour self-contained movie.
And do you watch movies you don't like multiple times? Do you read books you don't like multiple times?
I think you might be taking the term "hate-watching" a bit too seriously, but I agree that the term itself is somewhat lazy if being used seriously. It inoculates the viewer from any responsibility of caring about the show. Then again, I get why people "hate-read" 50 Shades of Grey, for example; there's a level of wanting to be "in the know" about pop culture events, even if the pop culture events are inherently terrible.
I don't think your watching movies multiple times and reading books multiple times argument really applies. I'm not watching an episode of The Newsroom multiple times, I'm watching different episodes. By it's very nature, TV can't be compared to movies and books that way.
By far the best episode of the season, the producer's analysis of the nancy grace stuff is something I could watch again and again. This stuff is why I tuned into the show in the first place. I hate the news, on all the channels. I despise Kaylee Anthony stories and their ilk, it makes me despair for human kind....leave that shit for Oprah and Geraldo...please let me watch an actual newscast. I wish they would get into the partisan nature of the news broadcasts as well, but that would be asking too much of Sorkin.
Will being called on the carpet for being a douche to Mac was good too. I am looking forward to the next therapy session. I actually find myself wanting will to apologize to Mac for his indignant douchebaggery throughout the season.
Another great scene between Waterston and Fonda, nice set up.....Reese is inspiring enough hate that I will enjoy his takedown.
Munn's ass is refenced....any time her ass is a subject I am fascinated.
As for the hate and the backlash.......this is my opinion on it. The show has it's politics. The fact that the show is often hamfisted and smug in delivering that message has painted a big bullseye on it. Two groups have taken issue with it. The right, because they hate anything that comes from the left. And those who hate hamfisted, smug, cloying, coldplay montages. However, when someone goes over the top pissing on the brutal Allison Pill character, or gleefully shits on coldplay.....there is a sneaking suspicion that the individual doing the pissing is forwarding the right wing agenda. Therefore they must be opposed, because right wing politics are shit. So what is a good, rightthinking individual to do? They can't really defend Allison Pill or Coldplay....so they need to characterize the shows detractors as right wing hate mongers. Anytime an individual has to defend something that deserves criticism for ideological reasons it can be frustrating.
Yeah, not to take away from talking about talking about the show, but I really dug this episode. No lame Maggie/Raimi love triangle stuff, Mac's histrionics actually felt justified, and they didn't rely on the audience's own emotional connection to the real-life news story to give the episode its weight. This is the show I'd like to tune in and see every week.
I'm in the group that doesn't like badly written, badly acted shows, regardless of whatever political point it takes up. It's why I also hated Studio 60.
And if hating Coldplay is forwarding the right-wing agenda than slap a Romney/Ryan bumper-sticker on my ass and point me to the nearest Chick-fil-a.
I think you might be taking the term "hate-watching" a bit too seriously, but I agree that the term itself is somewhat lazy if being used seriously. It inoculates the viewer from any responsibility of caring about the show. Then again, I get why people "hate-read" 50 Shades of Grey, for example; there's a level of wanting to be "in the know" about pop culture events, even if the pop culture events are inherently terrible.
I don't think your watching movies multiple times and reading books multiple times argument really applies. I'm not watching an episode of The Newsroom multiple times, I'm watching different episodes. By it's very nature, TV can't be compared to movies and books that way.
I read the first Twilight book because a person whose opinion I valued loved it and wouldn't stop suggesting it to me. It was dick so I never read the next books. I would never think of a reason to expose myself more to it.
And you're right TV shows are different. I know it therefore my Killing and Falling Skies examples. This is not an anthology show. I kept watching Masters Of Horror despite mostly hating it because each episode came from another creator and therefore had the chance to be great. Not The Newsroom. This is absolutely the product of Sorkin's mind. For the time being unless we hear of cast and crew changes for next season I can guarantee with a very high degree of certainty that it will remain as it is. If one has a problem with its themes and its "mission statement" I can guarantee that they will be having the same problems with it forever. "Yep, still preachy and ham-fisted." Next week. "Yep, still preachy and ham-fisted."
There finally seems to be some cohesion between the characters and the News, so I'm hoping the season is ramping up to end on a strong(er) note. I'm also grateful that the air seems to be coming out of the sanctimony somewhat, in pointing out that their Mission to Civilize is not exactly a success, although it still comes at the cost of all us viewing-audience Philistines -- especially women, being easily manipulated into mothering instincts -- who prefer emotional catharsis to content and so have abandoned News Night in droves. (I also remember quite a lot of real life news coverage about the impending debt ceiling vote/debate, so not sure who's being attacked there. In some cases, Sorkin's supposed 20/20 hindsight merits a trip to the optometrist.) OK, that got more negative than I intended, cause I did mostly enjoy the episode. (Also, haha, of course Sloan sooner reacts violently to her ass being called fat than to being accused of sleeping her way up! Women, amirite? Love 'em!)
I keep rooting for Allison Pill, because I do think I really like her as a comedic actress, but how the hell has Maggie not been fired yet? At least she was allowed to handle the Weiner succubus with some professionalism.
I am eagerly anticipating the new debate format that will change debate formats forever.
ETA: And speaking of disparaging Munn's ass... Amazing that Sorkin believes internet trolls are some kind of mysterious, cohesive syndicate that requires subtle infiltration to breach their well-organized fraternity, one that merits investigative reportage by an undercover journalist who must get himself initiated by fake-trolling -- with permission, as if pissing off someone on the internet were a bomb to be detonated only under strictly controlled circumstances. I cannot wait to see McAvoy's blistering expose on this phenomenon of "trolling" on a 2011 primetime news program.
Yeah, next week looks like it could be a good one.
I have been back and forth on this show. I'm never excited to watch it, but it's always somewhat entertaining. It's definitely growing on me and each episode seems to be better than the last.
Still not sure I can ever get over the "Fix You" Coldplay montage though. That one was impossible to swallow.
I have two episodes to catch up on and can't bring myself to push the button. Will someone tell me: are they an improvement over the previous few? Or do they go further down the love triangles of misery?
I have two episodes to catch up on and can't bring myself to push the button. Will someone tell me: are they an improvement over the previous few? Or do they go further down the love triangles of misery?
The last two episodes are SERIOUS improvements. There is a little less Monday-morning quarterbacking and the love triangle has definitely taken a back seat. As much as I criticize this show, and it does have groan-worthy moments, Waterston and Daniels are just too good. I think Don (Will's old EP? I forget his name) and Sloan (Munn's character) are also a lot of fun, as is Terry Crews.
Ah, I forgot about Terry Crews! OK, thanks, Spook.
Yeah, I was slagging the show pretty hard, but on top of the Crews excellence, the Waterston quotient has increased by a solid 40%, including another excellent scene with Fonda, who's excellent.
The stuff on the airplane two episodes ago was great until that awkward moment of man-awe/women-dismissal that happened at the end of it. But you guys are right about Olivia Munn, Waterston, Don and ESPECIALLY the great Jane Fonda almost make up for the daffy love triangle crap that infects this show. I also don't hate the actress that plays Lisa. For a character conceived in Sorkin's twisted women-goggles, the actress plays her with dignity.
Hmm, this last episode was fantastic, and there was almost ZERO Maggie/Jim drama. Anyone see a pattern?
I imagine a few people might have called Waterston, but who would have guessed Munn and 'Don' as the best characters on the show?
I think it's because they're the least developed, so the actors aren't really boxed into archetypes. And I hope this is a pattern, but given that they decided to introduce "the other man" in the Mac/Will love debacle, I doubt it. And the Maggie/Jim drama is still percolating in the background as we're told Don did nothing but talk about it on the airplane. Also, I'm not sure in terms of the shooting schedule if Sorkin et al have really had a chance to course-correct.
I just hope Terry Crews stays on this show and gets voted off the awful Todd Palin "war for entertainment" show.
Also, I'm not sure in terms of the shooting schedule if Sorkin et al have really had a chance to course-correct.
Sorkin said in a media panel (same one where the mass firing was debunked, and in which Daniels dropped a McAvoyish rip on critics) that the entire season was in the can before the first ep aired, so any post mortem-informed course correction is going to have to wait til season 2. Which is largely the reason I'll be giving season 2 a chance.
WHAT? WH-...HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT? REPEATEDLY YELLING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WORKPLACE OBVIOUSLY MEANS SOMETH....
I don't even have in it me to continue the parody. Just depressingly bad television.
Was last week a mirage? I could of sworn I saw a good show last week. One that did not include:
1. I can't put on my pants and I fall down in the middle of the workplace (it's ok Sorkin set that one up earlier so it was xtra hilarious)
2. I live with and my coworker dates someone who went to highschool with kaylee anthony....or kacie or kyra or whatever the fuck her name is
3. The troll investigation which quickly developed into the evil internutter who wants to kill teh Mcavoy
4. The re-emergence of the love quadrangle with new hilarity involving mistaken identity and star crossed love n shit
5. The second time Sorkin busted out the "what does gods voice sound like?" because that is such a brilliant counter to any religeous person (it's not)
6. The wonderful gee if the religeous right never made people not get abortions that anthony women would not of murdered her toddler (this argument was effectively made in freakonomics when Levitt and Dubner found a decrease in violent crime statistics a generation after abortion was legalized)....why not have McAvory interview them, or some stand in, or have a guest quote them instead of that twisted mess he presented?
Sorkin Diarrhea'd the tub in this episode.
My biggest problem is that we're told that covering Casey Anthony and Anthony Weiner is this gigantic compromise of their principles, but somehow the troll story is legit journalism that needs to be pursued at all costs.
That said, I still find this incredibly watchable, even when I'm rolling my eyes at it. Moreso than Studio 60 ever was. And "Fuck you" put me over the top -- I'm officially crushing on Olivia Munn on this show. HARD.
I give Mortimer a pass because she's adorable and generally charming. Alison Pill comes off as manic and on edge. Mack just seems like she's stuck in a 30s comedy.
My biggest problem is that we're told that covering Casey Anthony and Anthony Weiner is this gigantic compromise of their principles, but somehow the troll story is legit journalism that needs to be pursued at all costs.
That said, I still find this incredibly watchable, even when I'm rolling my eyes at it. Moreso than Studio 60 ever was. And "Fuck you" put me over the top -- I'm officially crushing on Olivia Munn on this show. HARD.
There were definitely some good moments, I just think I was frustrated that some of the gains in storytelling seemed as if they backslid after a string of really great episodes in recent weeks.
The highlights from last night definitely include that moment with Sloan. Munn has really surprised me on this show. I love how her first reaction was delighted surprise that she was in a position to be elevated to a "star" on the network, and then after a moment to consider further, she comes back with the "fuck you".
Also I loved Daniels with his cigarette. For a long moment I thought he was going to deck that guy. His quiet, fed up "get out" was just perfect though.
Maybe someone has already mentioned this but theme song to this series sounds like so much like "The West Wing" theme that it should just be labelled a "WW-remix".
This series is so frustrating...it has so many great moments only to be interrupted by neo-slapstick humor and lame sitcom relationship stories. It is going to be a interesting 2nd season.
....and how fucking awesome would the GOP debates have been if we had a McAvoy/ACN style moderator....that would have been glorious!
Maybe someone has already mentioned this but theme song to this series sounds like so much like "The West Wing" theme that it should just be labelled a "WW-remix".
Agreed mostly. I find it annoying that it is modeling itself after a cable news theme song/intro but it's what, two minutes long? Cable news intros are 10 seconds long for a reason.
Who would have thought Olivia Munn would be the best thing on this show? The goofy sexpot from Attack of the Show and Maxim magazine is actually a quite good and capable actress. If Sorkin's smart he'll increase her role next season.
My biggest problem is that we're told that covering Casey Anthony and Anthony Weiner is this gigantic compromise of their principles, but somehow the troll story is legit journalism that needs to be pursued at all costs.
Thank you, I was just coming here to say the same thing.
And once again, Sorkin takes a strong female character, puts her on the air, makes her correct for about ten seconds and then she screws up and Will needs to save her ass. He even shows up out of nowhere when her shop gets vandalized.
The point that Sorkin gets to make about the Republican dog and pony show is completely lost amongst all this ham-fisted, condescending bullshit. This could be such a better, smarter show but it settles for the lowest common denominator so often, so quickly.
Man, I'm still not getting the praise for Munn in this. She delivers all of her lines like a shitty actress in a bad play who's trying to overcompensate by making a really, really serious face and saying all of her lines in the MOSTINTENSEANDFASTMANNERPOSSIBLE. Don't get me wrong, she's no worse here than Pill, Patel or the guy who plays Jim, but I can't see what everyone else finds so amazing about her performance.
Also, speaking of bad performances, will someone please show Jeff Daniels how real people smoke cigarettes.
Oh, I liked it. Y r u agro on it?
Not really, this was a pretty bad episode. Although maybe I can see where a lot of you are coming from, in that I still enjoy watching it even when I know its bad and I'm kind of embarrassed for it. There are better shows that I've had less fun with.
"I don't understand why gay men are gay and straight women are straight." I think the show Sorkin sees in his head has no relation to the reality of what this show is outside of his head. The fact that Terry Crews was only onscreen for a split second and both Olivia Munn and Don were given poison pills to swallow is a testament to his sense of these characters being completely fubar. And every other complaint above too. (y r u agro?)
I am not a fan of this television program. I'm sorry I can't contribute anything more constructive to the conversation. But this show really doesn't deserve it, if you think about it.
I still can't put into words all of the things that were just completely terrible about this last episode. Usually there's something redeemable amongst the wreckage, and it's usually Waterston or Daniels, but this episode was just so... stupid.
I can't believe I've made it this far with this show. Like a sucker, I'll watch the finale. Hell, I watched Entourage all the way through the end and I'm still watching True Blood... But, like Treme, if the first episode of season 2 doesn't blow me away, I'm done. It's sad that an excellent mini series like Political Animals never got much traction while this show got so much press--although not necessarily good press.
I'd say that you should give Treme another chance. I don't know about the second episode of the second season being a mind-blower, but by the end of the second season its pretty much fixed the stuff from the first that I found lacking and becomes a really riveting, really powerful season of television.
I'd say that you should give Treme another chance. I don't know about the second episode of the second season being a mind-blower, but by the end of the second season its pretty much fixed the stuff from the first that I found lacking and becomes a really riveting, really powerful season of television.
The promos for the third season look spectacular, but I feel burned. The first season was... just... so... slow... Other than Goodman dying, virtually nothing happened.
Plus, I gotta get into Strike Back.
Heh. Morimer literally truned purple from shouting too much.
Plus, I gotta get into Strike Back.
YES. Yes, you do.
The promos for the third season look spectacular, but I feel burned. The first season was... just... so... slow... Other than Goodman dying, virtually nothing happened.
Plus, I gotta get into Strike Back.
Yeah I wasn't very keen on the first season either, but trust me, the second season delivers on its promise.
I can't believe I've made it this far with this show. Like a sucker, I'll watch the finale. Hell, I watched Entourage all the way through the end and I'm still watching True Blood... But, like Treme, if the first episode of season 2 doesn't blow me away, I'm done. It's sad that an excellent mini series like Political Animals never got much traction while this show got so much press--although not necessarily good press.
Treme is great! it's quality blows the lid off the Newsroom.
Treme and Newsroom are only similar in that they are both HBO hour long dramas....Treme is excellent.
