If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Newsroom, West Wing and Sports Night creator Aaron Sorkin has kind words for the New York Times, playwrights such as Harold Pinter and David Mamet. Not so much for The Huffington Post   (motherjones.com) divider line 63
    More: Interesting, Sports Night, David Mamet, Aaron Sorkin, Pinter, HuffPost, newsrooms, sucks, The New Republic  
•       •       •

1663 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 22 Aug 2013 at 12:52 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-22 09:50:57 AM
Well HuffPo does pretty much suck. The Newsroom is teh awesome though. Great show. Sorkin is a frickin genius. What a massive talent.
 
2013-08-22 10:09:47 AM

ginandbacon: Well HuffPo does pretty much suck. The Newsroom is teh awesome though. Great show. Sorkin is a frickin genius. What a massive talent.


[notsureifserious.jpeg]
 
2013-08-22 10:17:30 AM

Wendy's Chili: ginandbacon: Well HuffPo does pretty much suck. The Newsroom is teh awesome though. Great show. Sorkin is a frickin genius. What a massive talent.

[notsureifserious.jpeg]


What, you like HuffPo? You don't like Sorkin? What?
 
2013-08-22 10:33:45 AM

ginandbacon: Wendy's Chili: ginandbacon: Well HuffPo does pretty much suck. The Newsroom is teh awesome though. Great show. Sorkin is a frickin genius. What a massive talent.

[notsureifserious.jpeg]

What, you like HuffPo? You don't like Sorkin? What?


I think HuffPo gets a bad rap. Sure they have a lot of crap, but buried in there are important stories you might not hear about elsewhere.

My response was primarily directed at the "frickin genius, massive talent" part. I want to like Newsroom really bad because I'm interested in the subject matter, but dear god the dialogue and characters are awful.
 
2013-08-22 10:49:25 AM

Wendy's Chili: ginandbacon: Wendy's Chili: ginandbacon: Well HuffPo does pretty much suck. The Newsroom is teh awesome though. Great show. Sorkin is a frickin genius. What a massive talent.

[notsureifserious.jpeg]

What, you like HuffPo? You don't like Sorkin? What?

I think HuffPo gets a bad rap. Sure they have a lot of crap, but buried in there are important stories you might not hear about elsewhere.

My response was primarily directed at the "frickin genius, massive talent" part. I want to like Newsroom really bad because I'm interested in the subject matter, but dear god the dialogue and characters are awful.


Well, here we are going have to agree to disagree. I haven't been able to stand HuffPo since somewhere around the time of the Scooter Libby trial. They just went way off the rockers. And I do think Sorkin is a genius. I love his writing.
 
2013-08-22 10:59:58 AM
Jesus. with all the underlined crap in that article it was nearly unreadable.
 
2013-08-22 12:12:14 PM

Wendy's Chili: ginandbacon: Wendy's Chili: ginandbacon: Well HuffPo does pretty much suck. The Newsroom is teh awesome though. Great show. Sorkin is a frickin genius. What a massive talent.

[notsureifserious.jpeg]

What, you like HuffPo? You don't like Sorkin? What?

I think HuffPo gets a bad rap. Sure they have a lot of crap, but buried in there are important stories you might not hear about elsewhere.

My response was primarily directed at the "frickin genius, massive talent" part. I want to like Newsroom really bad because I'm interested in the subject matter, but dear god the dialogue and characters are awful.


I love the way Sorkin writes dialogue.  It might not be how people actually speak, but it's the way a lot of people wish they could speak.  Everyone seems more intelligent and always has a witty reply ready.

As for HuffPo, I think his criticism's are valid.  It's not that he doesn't appreciate the actual news that they cover, it's that he feels their celebrity gossip, internet meme, and countless slideshows detract from the site's ability to be considered a serious journalism outlet.

If there's one point Sorkin has been trying to make with The Newsroom it's that we're currently being underserved by the media.

Awesome to hear he's already been greened for a third season though.
 
2013-08-22 12:24:33 PM

Wendy's Chili: I think HuffPo gets a bad rap. Sure they have a lot of crap, but buried in there are important stories you might not hear about elsewhere.


Sure, there's a story about why we objectify women, but to get there I have to browse through 3 headlines of "Guess which hot actress went naked on set?" or "'Hey, there hot stuff' and 12 other ways you should approach women" ads.

/forget the Newsroom quote
 
2013-08-22 12:24:57 PM
TuteTibiImperes: It might not be how people actually speak, but it's the way a lot of people wish they could speak.  Everyone seems more intelligent and always has a witty reply ready.

Exactly. It's like watching Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant in His Girl Friday. But without the wonderful hats.
 
2013-08-22 12:27:31 PM

TuteTibiImperes: If there's one point Sorkin has been trying to make with The Newsroom it's that we're currently being underserved by the media.


The purpose of Al-Jezeera America sounds like they took up the argument Sorkin is making and trying to do something about it.

TuteTibiImperes: Awesome to hear he's already been greened for a third season though.


*happy dance*

I like how this season is turning out. And you learned one thing, never trust a guy with a name from the 70s
 
2013-08-22 12:29:58 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I love the way Sorkin writes dialogue. It might not be how people actually speak, but it's the way a lot of people wish they could speak. Everyone seems more intelligent and always has a witty reply ready.


My problem is that they all speak with the same literary voice. It feels like the inner monologue of a single manic character split between 5 or 6 different actors. The rapid-fire replies exacerbate the problem when they're delivered before the other character is done talking, to say nothing of their frequent lack of wit.
 
2013-08-22 12:56:36 PM
Newsroom...

i340.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-22 12:57:45 PM
The Newsroom is Sorkin being paid to write out all the magical liberal fantasies in his head.
 
2013-08-22 12:59:48 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I love the way Sorkin writes dialogue. It might not be how people actually speak, but it's the way a lot of people wish they could speak. Everyone seems more intelligent and always has a witty reply ready.


And everyone can be convinced to your way of thinking with a slow clap and a bombasic orchestral score if you simply deliver a timely, impassioned speech full of reason, truth, and god-fearing liberal values.
 
2013-08-22 01:00:58 PM

WTF Indeed: The Newsroom is Sorkin being paid to write out all the magical liberal fantasies in his head.


That's what West Wing was, too.
 
2013-08-22 01:01:14 PM

TuteTibiImperes: If there's one point Sorkin has been trying to make with The Newsroom it's that we're currently being underserved by the media.


But we already knew that because Jon Stewart has been telling us (and showing us) for the past 15 years.
 
2013-08-22 01:03:12 PM
The only reason Sorkin still writes is that it allows half-assed liberal opinion writers a fictional context to compare democrats against. "If only Obama was more like the President in (Insert Sorkin product here) he'd have fixed America already."
 
2013-08-22 01:06:08 PM

WTF Indeed: The Newsroom is Sorkin being paid to write out all the magical liberal fantasies in his head.


Which can make for compelling television when done correctly.  The Newsroom has had more ups and downs than The West Wing which came on pretty solid from the beginning, but it's finding its feet.  The last couple episodes in particular have shown that the writers really know where it needs to go.
 
2013-08-22 01:16:02 PM

Ishkur: TuteTibiImperes: I love the way Sorkin writes dialogue. It might not be how people actually speak, but it's the way a lot of people wish they could speak. Everyone seems more intelligent and always has a witty reply ready.

And everyone can be convinced to your way of thinking with a slow clap and a bombasic orchestral score if you simply deliver a timely, impassioned speech full of reason, truth, and god-fearing liberal values.


"god-fearing liberal values"?
 
2013-08-22 01:16:56 PM
TuteTibiImperes:
As for HuffPo, I think his criticism's are valid.  It's not that he doesn't appreciate the actual news that they cover, it's that he feels their celebrity gossip, internet meme, and countless slideshows detract from the site's ability to be considered a serious journalism outlet.

.


I must have missed where he stated that. Could you point it out please.
 
2013-08-22 01:22:46 PM
This is the thread where people who always call CBS's new hit sitcom "FART! The Show" a guilty pleasure complain about what an unfunny ivory tower elitist Aaron Sorkin is? Yup, figures.


Here you go, comedy connoisseurs, something to take home: THBBBBPT! HA HA HA HA HA!
 
2013-08-22 01:23:24 PM

the lord god: TuteTibiImperes:
As for HuffPo, I think his criticism's are valid.  It's not that he doesn't appreciate the actual news that they cover, it's that he feels their celebrity gossip, internet meme, and countless slideshows detract from the site's ability to be considered a serious journalism outlet.

.

I must have missed where he stated that. Could you point it out please.


If you watch the show and subscribe to the theory that he uses the characters to on occasion espouse his own beliefs that was a rant one of them had in a recent episode.
 
2013-08-22 01:26:03 PM

WTF Indeed: The only reason Sorkin still writes is that it allows half-assed liberal opinion writers a fictional context to compare democrats against. "If only Obama was more like the President in (Insert Sorkin product here) he'd have fixed America already."

he gets enough viewers to get broadcast executives to pay him for it.

All writers are to some extent writing their own fantasies (political or personal). Whether it's "We have to beat up this terroristy guy because there's a bomb and WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME" or "In the future, if you're wondering: 'Crime. Boy, I don't know,' is when I decided to kick your ass."
 
2013-08-22 01:31:30 PM

TuteTibiImperes: the lord god: TuteTibiImperes:
As for HuffPo, I think his criticism's are valid.  It's not that he doesn't appreciate the actual news that they cover, it's that he feels their celebrity gossip, internet meme, and countless slideshows detract from the site's ability to be considered a serious journalism outlet.

.

I must have missed where he stated that. Could you point it out please.

If you watch the show and subscribe to the theory that he uses the characters to on occasion espouse his own beliefs that was a rant one of them had in a recent episode.


The show is a fictional work yes? Why did he just not endorse that idea when given the opportunity? Instead he singled out one site only and hardly endorsed any part of it.
 
2013-08-22 01:33:52 PM

WTF Indeed: The Newsroom is Sorkin being paid to write out all the magical liberal fantasies in his head.


That's why I hate The Twilight Zone.  It's just Rod Serling and his pals pushing their Socialist agenda.  And don't get me started on Star Trek.
 
2013-08-22 01:38:27 PM

CarnySaur: And don't get me started on Star Trek.


I always knew the Tribbles were stand ins for decent, Christian Americans who are overwhelmed by liberal culture.
 
2013-08-22 01:39:53 PM
The Federation. Think about it.
 
2013-08-22 01:42:08 PM

Nurglitch: "god-fearing liberal values"?


I think he meant "Messiah-fearing liberal values," as in Obama.
 
2013-08-22 01:44:36 PM

someonelse: "In the future, if you're wondering: 'Crime. Boy, I don't know,' is when I decided to kick your ass."


One of the best quotes in all of television.

One of the others is the smackdown he delivered, in the "can we have it [Federal funds sent to a red-state\ back, please?"
 
2013-08-22 01:55:02 PM

EyeballKid: This is the thread where people who always call CBS's new hit sitcom "FART! The Show" a guilty pleasure complain about what an unfunny ivory tower elitist Aaron Sorkin is? Yup, figures.

Here you go, comedy connoisseurs, something to take home: THBBBBPT! HA HA HA HA HA!


img51.imageshack.us

Better than smelling your own farts like the typical smug Newsroom/Sorkin viewer.

/ahhh! what witty writing!
 
2013-08-22 01:58:29 PM
peterthx:  Better than smelling your own farts like the typical smug Newsroom/Sorkin viewer.

I know you are but what am I?
 
2013-08-22 01:59:20 PM

WTF Indeed: The Newsroom is Sorkin being paid to write out all the magical liberal fantasies in his head.


"Duck Dynasty is real to me dammit."
 
2013-08-22 02:00:09 PM
I liked the first season, but it did have problems with some of the romantic subplots, particularly Jim/Maggie.  They've taken care of that this season and the overall quality has gotten much better.
 
2013-08-22 02:01:48 PM
Season 2 sucks. Lets just throw it out there. Why does it suck? Because of the horrific main plotline that is an imaginary event based on something from the 1990s.

The show is great when it deals with the relationships between the characters, actual news reporting, and how the ideal news shown should lack bias. It can be incredibly emotional when dealing with REAL events and their REAL consequences.

Season 1 was great. I hope the show goes back to that format and focuses on real, debatable topics instead of cartoonish imaginary ones.
 
2013-08-22 02:04:59 PM

peterthx: EyeballKid: This is the thread where people who always call CBS's new hit sitcom "FART! The Show" a guilty pleasure complain about what an unfunny ivory tower elitist Aaron Sorkin is? Yup, figures.

Here you go, comedy connoisseurs, something to take home: THBBBBPT! HA HA HA HA HA!

[img51.imageshack.us image 512x384]

Better than smelling your own farts like the typical smug Newsroom/Sorkin viewer.

/ahhh! what witty writing!


Wow, a South Park fan who indulges in identity politics; and here I thought you all got rich after discovering Ayn Rand your freshman year.
 
2013-08-22 02:11:22 PM
I like his shows. Pretty angry Netflix pulled sports night from their streaming catalogue. And calling huff po crap is pretty much like reading out of an encyclopedia: is Doug racist?!
 
2013-08-22 02:33:38 PM

justtray: Season 2 sucks. Lets just throw it out there. Why does it suck? Because of the horrific main plotline that is an imaginary event based on something from the 1990s.

The show is great when it deals with the relationships between the characters, actual news reporting, and how the ideal news shown should lack bias. It can be incredibly emotional when dealing with REAL events and their REAL consequences.

Season 1 was great. I hope the show goes back to that format and focuses on real, debatable topics instead of cartoonish imaginary ones.


Sorkin got raked over the coals by some critics for the season one format.  Some people felt that it was tacky and cheap to do a hindsight 20/20 review of past events.

So, for season 2 he decided to go to a new format, making a season long arc (with the Genoa story) and reducing the amount of time spent covering real news from the past.

Season one was polarizing, and season two seems to have disappointed some of the hardcore season one fans while ameliorating the concerns of some of the more vocal season one detractors.

I think season two started off a bit slow, but I like the groove they've gotten themselves into the last couple episodes.
 
2013-08-22 02:57:23 PM

TuteTibiImperes: justtray: Season 2 sucks. Lets just throw it out there. Why does it suck? Because of the horrific main plotline that is an imaginary event based on something from the 1990s.

The show is great when it deals with the relationships between the characters, actual news reporting, and how the ideal news shown should lack bias. It can be incredibly emotional when dealing with REAL events and their REAL consequences.

Season 1 was great. I hope the show goes back to that format and focuses on real, debatable topics instead of cartoonish imaginary ones.

Sorkin got raked over the coals by some critics for the season one format.  Some people felt that it was tacky and cheap to do a hindsight 20/20 review of past events.

So, for season 2 he decided to go to a new format, making a season long arc (with the Genoa story) and reducing the amount of time spent covering real news from the past.

Season one was polarizing, and season two seems to have disappointed some of the hardcore season one fans while ameliorating the concerns of some of the more vocal season one detractors.

I think season two started off a bit slow, but I like the groove they've gotten themselves into the last couple episodes.


Yeah this was my understanding of it as well, and I think he should have just said 'screw em.' The critics didn't like it because it showed just how silly media is in this day and age. He shouldn't cater to that folk.

I get that it's easy prey to pick on things the media got wrong, but that doesn't mean you have to make up imaginary events to balance it out. Just focus on things the media also got right every once in a while. (rare I know)

Personally I think the overall plot arch could have been the coverage of the 2012 election. There were so many awesome things that happened like Romney getting his tax returns stolen, 47%, Benghazi, the various ridiculous Republican primaries, etc. Also the fact that there were a ton of Republican media outlets calling it in the bag for Romney when he didn't even have a remote chance of winning, at any point. Media influence of prepolling numbers would be a great subject to tackle. It's crazy how Nate Silver's prediction, while 100% correct went from a roughly 60% chance of Obama winning a few days before the election to a ~97% chance the night before.

Oh ANNNDDDD how the election was over once Florida was certain for Obama but no media outlet wanted to call it because they still needed to fill 3-5 hours of news coverage. It would have been amazing for CNN or someone to call it once we knew online, which was about 2 hours before they did, and then just say, "well its over people, Obama wins, there's no way for Romney to get the electorial votes even if he gets Ohio, etc etc etc."

I thought the Fark threads that day were by far the best coverage of the election and that will be the future of elections.
 
2013-08-22 03:01:18 PM

WTF Indeed: The Newsroom is Sorkin being paid to write out all the magical liberal fantasies in his head.


I'd like to think the fantasy of a media who does actual reporting instead the crap CNN and Fox news air, is a fantasy that crosses the liberal/conservative divide.
 
2013-08-22 03:06:18 PM

EyeballKid: Wow, a South Park fan who indulges in identity politics; and here I thought you all got rich after discovering Ayn Rand your freshman year.


Who?

/freshman college was so so soooo long ago
 
2013-08-22 03:20:22 PM

YodaBlues: I'd like to think the fantasy of a media who does actual reporting instead the crap CNN and Fox news air, is a fantasy that crosses the liberal/conservative divide.


Nope. Remember, Fox News went to court for the right to lie to the public.
 
2013-08-22 03:30:50 PM

TuteTibiImperes: justtray: Season 2 sucks. Lets just throw it out there. Why does it suck? Because of the horrific main plotline that is an imaginary event based on something from the 1990s.

The show is great when it deals with the relationships between the characters, actual news reporting, and how the ideal news shown should lack bias. It can be incredibly emotional when dealing with REAL events and their REAL consequences.

Season 1 was great. I hope the show goes back to that format and focuses on real, debatable topics instead of cartoonish imaginary ones.

Sorkin got raked over the coals by some critics for the season one format.  Some people felt that it was tacky and cheap to do a hindsight 20/20 review of past events.

So, for season 2 he decided to go to a new format, making a season long arc (with the Genoa story) and reducing the amount of time spent covering real news from the past.

Season one was polarizing, and season two seems to have disappointed some of the hardcore season one fans while ameliorating the concerns of some of the more vocal season one detractors.

I think season two started off a bit slow, but I like the groove they've gotten themselves into the last couple episodes.


Get out of my head!  Seriously, though, I've liked the Genoa storyline because it lets Sorkin tell a story without getting preachy.  My biggest problem with this show is that it comes off less as "This is how the news should be done" and more "This is how you should have done the news," and the latter is very off-putting.  Overall, I think he's been much more balanced in his politics this year and has even let the characters develop personalities so they don't just come off as Sorkin mouthpieces.  Like, it made sense that Will, the former prosecutor, wouldn't be as upset about Troy Davis.

And this may come off as heresy, but I think this show would actually work better on regular cable, at 40-45 minutes with commercial breaks.  There are a lot of awkward transitions that feel like they would work better with commercials and there's always about 15-20 minutes that, if trimmed, would make the episode better (typically anything involving the character's love lives).
 
2013-08-22 04:20:55 PM
So, Sorkin says that Huffpo is too snarky and negative and critical and whiny.

Huffpo writers respond with negative critical whiny snark at Sorkin himself that doesn't at all address his points, only mocks his tendencies in his shows.

Point Sorkin.
 
2013-08-22 04:29:29 PM
It's these links. These links are weak.
 
2013-08-22 04:30:57 PM

justtray: Personally I think the overall plot arch could have been the coverage of the 2012 election. There were so many awesome things that happened like Romney getting his tax returns stolen, 47%, Benghazi, the various ridiculous Republican primaries, etc. Also the fact that there were a ton of Republican media outlets calling it in the bag for Romney when he didn't even have a remote chance of winning, at any point. Media influence of prepolling numbers would be a great subject to tackle. It's crazy how Nate Silver's prediction, while 100% correct went from a roughly 60% chance of Obama winning a few days before the election to a ~97% chance the night before


I think that's going to end up being the focus of Season 3. I think this season ends with the Republican nomination (not necessarily the convention, just the effective end of the primary) and season 3 will kick into campaign mode.

As for Genoa, I like it. I personally don't remember the actual story this was based on (the CNN story they completely botched) so it's nice that they're showing just what the pressure for the next Watergate is like in the newsroom. But they really haven't been focusing a great deal of the episodes on it, and that's the format from the first season that they really got right: many episodic subplots to focus on. Sorkin did this in TWW because both of these (and sports night, but I never saw that) are office dramas. You don't really have a whole lot of action, so just having episode after episode focusing on Genoa or the campaign and the like would get horribly boring and stale by episode 3.

This way, you get to have some sort of intertwining world where you can focus on Jim on the campaign trail, maggie in africa, sloan going on about drone strikes, Will trying not to go insane with women/ratings/raving lunatics calling him a RINO sellout, Neal trying to make OWS seem like a worthwhile movement (easily one of my favorite storylines this year...mostly because Neal just gets shiat on when he brings up stories since the "Bigfoot is real" pitch he made last year). Charlie trying to keep Will on the air, and Will's EP (whose name eludes me at the moment) trying to keep up with the "no nonsense news show" mentality while also getting pressured to do the shiat news and Jim's temp replacement trying to bring down the white house.

That's the beauty of Sorkin's shows. He does many plots really really well. Yes, the overall story this season is Genoa, much like last season was "no nonsense news" but you also get the sense that there's more going on than just the thing at hand. So instead of the crime drama that focuses on the case while having little moments of outside world plots, this is lots of outside world plots and less focus on the overarching storyline
 
2013-08-22 04:49:12 PM

somedude210: I think that's going to end up being the focus of Season 3. I think this season ends with the Republican nomination (not necessarily the convention, just the effective end of the primary) and season 3 will kick into campaign mode.


I don't if this counts as a SPOILER, but the titles of the last two episodes of the season are "Election Night, pt. I" and "Election Night, pt. II."
 
2013-08-22 05:04:23 PM

rugman11: somedude210: I think that's going to end up being the focus of Season 3. I think this season ends with the Republican nomination (not necessarily the convention, just the effective end of the primary) and season 3 will kick into campaign mode.

I don't if this counts as a SPOILER, but the titles of the last two episodes of the season are "Election Night, pt. I" and "Election Night, pt. II."


fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
 
2013-08-22 05:08:34 PM

rugman11: somedude210: I think that's going to end up being the focus of Season 3. I think this season ends with the Republican nomination (not necessarily the convention, just the effective end of the primary) and season 3 will kick into campaign mode.

I don't if this counts as a SPOILER, but the titles of the last two episodes of the season are "Election Night, pt. I" and "Election Night, pt. II."


Maybe Sorkin was expecting it not to get picked up for a third season? I dunno. I thought they had rushed through the timeline this season to get to the primary and do a "season3 of TWW in reverse" for season 3 (if they got it)
 
2013-08-22 05:12:37 PM

somedude210: rugman11: somedude210: I think that's going to end up being the focus of Season 3. I think this season ends with the Republican nomination (not necessarily the convention, just the effective end of the primary) and season 3 will kick into campaign mode.

I don't if this counts as a SPOILER, but the titles of the last two episodes of the season are "Election Night, pt. I" and "Election Night, pt. II."

Maybe Sorkin was expecting it not to get picked up for a third season? I dunno. I thought they had rushed through the timeline this season to get to the primary and do a "season3 of TWW in reverse" for season 3 (if they got it)


The primary montage in the last episode surprised me.  There were a lot of stories they blew right past.
 
2013-08-22 05:21:32 PM

imontheinternet: somedude210: rugman11: somedude210: I think that's going to end up being the focus of Season 3. I think this season ends with the Republican nomination (not necessarily the convention, just the effective end of the primary) and season 3 will kick into campaign mode.

I don't if this counts as a SPOILER, but the titles of the last two episodes of the season are "Election Night, pt. I" and "Election Night, pt. II."

Maybe Sorkin was expecting it not to get picked up for a third season? I dunno. I thought they had rushed through the timeline this season to get to the primary and do a "season3 of TWW in reverse" for season 3 (if they got it)

The primary montage in the last episode surprised me.  There were a lot of stories they blew right past.


Was the campaign really that interesting, though?  I mean, the episode started in March after Romney had locked up the nomination.  And I thought the whole point of Jim's arc in the first part of the season was to demonstrate how boring and repetitive campaigns really are.  It seems like the next episode is going to wrap up the Genoa story and then the final two episodes will probably cover all the election stuff in one swoop.  Sorkin's also playing a little fast and loose with the timeline this season, so it wouldn't surprise me if he used Election Night as a framing device to tell the story of the campaign through flashbacks.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report