I enjoyed the Wire but just a little too much pontifcating dialogue. Took away some of the realism for me. Like every character had a speech writer.
BB is definitely in my top 5, probably above the Wire.
Can’t agree. Spend some time with mob biographies and you’ll occasionally come to the opposite conclusion. Many of those people were actual psychopaths. But others were just profoundly shitty in one aspect of their lives who were nonetheless capable of being loving parents, committed spouses or what have you. Realistic criminals come in all colors, from black and white monsters to the conflicted and self-deluded.
Tony Soprano in both the good and the monstrous aspects of his personality was a pretty realistic portrayal of a mobster. Likewise I think Walter White, putting aside questions of genius and the like, is a pretty well-drawn character psychologically. He had to have the predisposition to break bad in the first place, but only did so because sheer happenstance placed him in the position to do so.
Also, I can relate to Walter White, more than I can to the cops and robbers on other shows. Sure, The Sopranos is about good robbers, The Shield is about bad cops, and everyone on The Wire lives in a moral gray zone. But I’m not a cop or a robber. Walter White is a middle-aged schlub who wants to be a badass. That hits closer to home for me.
Apropos of nothing special, I wonder if the next variant of the Walter White character would be a cross between Wally Cox and Kaiser Soze… (or has that been done and I just didn’t notice?)
I had no problem with Cranston’s acting but totally agree Aaron was excellent.
TCMF-2L
Look, I’m just using “common sense” here but I don’t think you can murder people on a regular basis and still be a good person of have a conscience. Yes, criminals love their families. But that is not a judge of character. How they treat other people defines their character.
Do you really think a loan shark, someone who can break someone’s wrist for $1000 or threaten that persons family, do you really think that person can come home and - actually - be a good, loving, patient father or husband? It seems very doubtful to me. “Love their family”? Maybe. Treat them well? Doubt it.
I can respect the opinion that “The Wire” is a better show than “Breaking Bad”. The same goes for “The Sopranos”, which I adored and need to rewatch one of these days. Even “Deadwood” is a fine choice, although I think it meandered too much, especially in season three. “Six Feet Under” isn’t a bad choice either - it probably had the best final episode of any show, ever.
But “Lost” and “Dexter”?! Neither of those shows are in the same tier of quality. Both shows started off strong but quickly went downhill. “Lost” improved slightly towards the end, but nowhere near enough to justify putting it in the same category as the top quality shows mentioned above. And “Dexter” just got embarrassingly bad.
People think that subjectivity of artistic appreciation means that there are no wrong answers to questions such as “What is the greatest television show?” But that’s not true. Subjectivity just means that there is no one right answer; there are plenty of wrong ones.
It’s odd that you say that, since many of the criminals on “The Wire” had clear warm and fuzzy sides. Bubbles was a criminal (he purchased illegal drugs regularly). In season five, multiple “good guy” characters break the law. McNulty is guilty of at least kidnapping and running an illegal wiretap, and probably a number of other things.
Discussing criminals on “Game of Thrones” is somewhat problematic, since we don’t know the legal code of Westeros. Nevertheless, The Hound absolutely broke the law during / after the battle of Blackwater, and he clearly has a soft side (albeit well-hidden). Renly is clearly a lawbreaker in that he is a usurper, and he’s the least assholish of the brothers Baratheon.
Marie and her shoplifting
Walt and his rocks
Jane
Skyler and her constant frowning and bad attitude
Walt’s attempted affair
Skylar’s affair
Aaron Paul sure is good at emoting. Bryan Cranston is good at acting.
Or, heck, I dunno, I’m not an actor, and I’m not sure how to judge these things. And I do love Aaron Paul as Jesse. But I see interviews with an off-duty Aaron Paul, and I see a whole lot of Jesse Pinkman. Bryan Cranston, on the other hand, is clearly nothing like Walt. Doesn’t talk like or sound like Walt, doesn’t even look like Walt. That has to be an indication of something when it comes to acting chops.
/ his, x10
Both The Wire and The Sopranos were better. Breaking Bad was good, the acting was especially solid, but I felt like the cinematography could be pretty gimmicky at times.
Breaking Bad was one of the best tv series of all times, but I honestly don’t think that’s all that great of an accomplishment. I mean, most television shows aren’t all that great to begin with when compared to cinema. I suspect, that as tv draws in more talented writers and directors, that tv shows will get progressively better and better until it finally rivals what we see in the cinema. That hasn’t happened yet, but quality shows like Breaking Bad, Fargo, Game of Thrones, etc, are getting close and are being made with increasing frequency. So I do think BB will be eclipsed soon in the public consciousness as the “greatest show of all time”.
But none of those elements were filler. They all served to illustrate both the pressures on Walt, and the toll his decisions could–and did–take on those around him.
I guess that depends upon what your definition of is, is.
Pretty much all of the items I mentioned are disliked or even despised by a substantial number of viewers.
My take on your list:
[spoiler]Marie and her shoplifting, Hank (as I presume you meant) and his rocks:
Yeah, didn’t really go anywhere. Probably counts mostly as filler. Although as far as the rocks go, the joke someone got to make in a thread here about Hank and Marie’s marriage going through a rocky period almost made it worth it.
Jane:
Jane is completely awesome. I’ve actually never heard anyone say they didn’t like Jane, until now. Her unfortunate end, and Walt’s part in it, seems to be one of the most talked about moments on the show, at least around here.
Skyler and her so-called attitude:
Skyler is completely awesome, and anyone who has a problem with her character needs a good smacking with a wet trout. Also, they need to learn to pay attention when watching TV.
Walt’s attempted affair:
Don’t know what this is about, unless you mean the two second character moment with the school principal. Walt is pretty clearly 100% Skyler-philic. Well, and maybe a bit gay for Pinkman. But we’re all gay for Pinkman.
Skyler’s affair (IFT):
Act of God, that was. Ain’t no accounting for no act of God.
No, seriously, that plot line is fine, and serves to develop both Skyler and Walt as characters.[/spoiler]
The more I think about that “filler” comment, the more I regret taking it seriously. I’m not even sure what “filler” would mean in any long-form story: is it stuff that doesn’t move the main plot forward? Is it stuff that could be edited out without affecting the comprehensibility of the episode? What is it?
A lot of my favorite moments in shows are completely unnecessary to the main story; they’re in there because they’re beautiful, or funny, or otherwise moving. Criticizing a show for having too much “filler,” or praising it for lacking filler, strikes me as increasingly absurd the more I think about it.
What was awesome about her? She was a terrible person who dragged Jesse down into heroin addiction and blackmailed Walt so they could get a payday and buy a bunch more heroin. She was cute, yeah, but as a person she didn’t have any redeeming qualities.
As a character, she was awesome. If someone being a nice *person *is your criterion for liking a character on BB, you’re pretty much SOL all round.
That is the definition of filler. It is fine, as a concept. As you say,it often even works well. And it doesn’t need to work well all of the time. It’s very nature would indicate that it is not going to be the most interesting part of the show, usually. But it shouldn’t detract from the show. When you cringe when you know a scene or character is coming up, that is a bad thing, and would not/should not be present in any show nominated for “best show ever”.
Marie’s shoplifting served as a moral test of her DEA husband’s strict stance against lawbreaking, except for his crazy wife’s offenses (or his brother-in-law’s non-existent pot smoking).
Hank’s (not Walt’s) rocks were a reaction to his loss of control from being shot and maybe permanently disabled (with a nod to his PTSD from shooting Tuco).
Jane was a totally spoiled brat. Her significance was the effect of her death on her long-suffering, unconditionally-loving father. To quote Vince Gilligan: Actions have consequences.
To paraphrase John Lennon: Filler is a concept by which we measure our time and interest.
My wife watched two episodes and decided that it wasn’t for her, and I think that’s grounds for divorce. It really was just that good. I loved Sopranos. I never thought I’d love anything as much as that. But, Breaking Bad was better. It has to give a nod to Sopranos, because it probably doesn’t get made without that show. But, it surpassed Sopranos.