The last season was wrong on so many critically important levels, it robbed The Wire of the title forever.
I just want to say that these statements are stunning to me, and deserve their own thread, in GD. No, I didn’t create one, I just couldn’t let them lay there totally unmentioned. But I also can’t knowingly derail this thread completely by getting into it.
Thank you.
Easily
The Sopranos was brimming with terrific, groundbreaking stuff, particularly in the early years. But it also spent quite a bit of time stumbling around. There was loads of filler and we ended up pretty much where we started.
And this brings me to the way BB picked up the ball from the Sopranos and ended up scoring the biggest touchdown of all. It is is actually what defines Breaking Bad: there was profound change in not just a major character, but the protagonist :eek:, something that was previously unheard of. And it was more than just “change”, it was a complete transformation, which is inherently almost impossible to do in a credible fashion. Yet they not only made it credible, they made it entirely logical by creating a very real and very complex human being, not just a character who behaves however they need him to so they can hang this week’s story on him. (Lookin’ at you, Kurt Sutter…)
Gilligan’s intention from the very beginning was to to trace one man’s outrageous journey “from Mr. Chips to Scarface”. That he pulled off such a challenging trick at all is admirable, but to have done it so spectacularly, well, that is why it is, as objectively as such things can be measured, the GreatestI Television Show In The History Of The World, duh. 
Well I’ve not seen the most recent GoT season so I don’t really want to make a thread that covers that topic…
But you think it is “stunning” that I say the “morality” of Walter White is “comic book morality” and that real criminals don’t have any redeeming qualities and are not nice people? I am just as interested in that debate as you are. I think it is stunning that anyone could try to make the case that Walter White in any way represents a real life application of a Moral human being…
Interesting debate…
This is sort of like saying that an inch is the purplest measurement. The level of objectivity with which something like this can be measured is zero. Pronouncements about how it, or anything else, is objectively the best show is just meaningless filler (thanks, now I get what “filler” means) in an otherwise interesting thread.
This is the part that saved me from thinking you were talking about Gilligan’s Island for a minute there…
I disagree, obviously.
The fact that opinion and individual preferences play a factor in our assessments of art doesn’t mean that it is impossible to apply some degree of objective standards, otherwise there would be no such thing as awards for artistic endeavors and it would be impossible to teach anything about art, music, literature, dance, film and, of course, television.
Skill in almost every area of production can be objectively assessed, and it is entirely legitimate to use that as at least part of the measure.
I think threads like this get turned into “what’s your favorite?”, when that is a separate question. is it legitimate to assert that Michaelangelo is among the greatest artists of all time? Is he your favorite?
Art criticism is a thing, you know. That so many people aren’t able to do it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
OK
So we can make the case that BB was the most - entertaining - show in the history of television. How do we make the case it was the best - show - in the history of television.
We don’t. I said it was the best show ever, but if some other guy thinks that “Ow my balls” is the greatest show ever, then there aren’t objective factors to dispute it. It is entertainment and extremely subjective.
I’d say give it another shot; at least 2 or 3 more. I thought that the 1st episode was a little boring, but, not bad. The series was really great, but, you may not love it. My gf didn’t, some of my friends didn’t, some are still quoting some of the stuff.
Wait, there was a guy on BB named Gilligan?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Not quite - Vince Gilligan is the creator.
Also, no coconut cream pie.
I watched all of The Sopranos. As I was watching it, I was always eager to see the next episode. Once I was done watching it, I pretty much forgot about it. Ask me to describe any of the season-long story arcs and I couldn’t.
Six Feet Under was quite a compelling show, but basically it just meandered around for a while and then it was over. If there was a show-long storyline or arc I couldn’t tell you what it was
Deadwood was stunningly good, but suffered from no real conclusion (as it was cancelled), and some VERY uneven storylines (oh, those ridiculous actors in season 3).
The West Wing is incredibly entertaining TV, but it rarely was more than just a witty and perky TV show. It’s too fluffy and insubstantial to really compete.
Homeland, House of Cards, The X-Files, Rome and Sherlock don’t even deserve to be in this conversation.
Game of Thrones I love love loooooove, but it’s still going, so we can’t really fully judge it.
The Simpsons had a remarkable period of sustained greatness that was about as long as the complete run of many shows under discussion here, but has tainted that legacy with another decade and a half of just being a funny show.
That leaves The Wire, which is, in fact, the greatest TV show ever. But Breaking Bad is on the very short list of shows that are nearly as good.
(All of the above is objectively provable, btw.)
actually, I was responding to Void… BTW… what is your second favorite/other favorite shows?
The West Wing does not have to use crime as a prop to make the episodes compelling. The flaw of TWW as far as I see it is it is too biased to appeal to all/most people. The Wire is a really really good show, and while it does not rely on fistfights or ticking time bombs or shootouts, it still has crime as a prop to carry the story.
BB is perfect the way it is.
You know, a lot of females find white guys fascinating For entertainment purposes, they often fit the bill. Also, amazingly, many of us love shows like BB that have the whole package: interesting prep leading to great action, a location that really gets under your skin, terrific characters (like Saul, and Gus, and how can you think Skyler isn’t interesting? Right from that limp hand-job that said so much about her attitude to Walt at that time.) Oh, and good looking dudes - Walt’s transformation from dork to “say my name” - my jaw was dropping, and Gus Fring is still one my favourite characters.
We’re not all counting up the “strong female characters” to make sure it’s all fair. Actually, I don’t know anyone who really cares. As long as it all comes together like it did with Breaking Bad, that’s all that counts.
Sure, and I don’t want to suggest I’m counting. But the wife character specifically grated on me as not a real character so much as a vaguely misogynist prop to show what a pitiful man WW was (here I’m thinking of the ebay handjob, the living room intervention, and maybe a couple other scenes). And the few nonwhite characters that did show up seemed like racist caricatures to me (here I’m thinking of the Latino ultraviolent dudes WW meets in the first season).
I have no trouble with a LOTR-style story with no nonwhite characters and almost no women: white-boy-buddy movies are a legit genre. But when you introduce non-white-boys, and they’re caricatures of the shrewish wife or the violent Mexican, it runs into problems.
This, of course, is a ridiculous misunderstanding of aesthetic judgments, awards shows, and art criticism; I’ll let its absurdity speak for itself.
Hey! That’s Skyler you’re talking about. She ain’t no prop, Jack.
Skyler comes around as a fully rounded human being in her own right, as time goes on. Don’t worry about her.
Fair enough. My criticism are, as I said, limited entirely to the first season. If the show improves dramatically after that first season, I can see offering it some of the accolades it’s receiving here. As it is, the first season is in my second or third tier of shows, not the first.
It gets better simply because the Walt’s arch enemy shows up at the end of season 2 or the beginning of season 3. The show has some good points and bad points but one thing that is indisputable is that Walt and his arch Enemy are 2 of the most conniving, brilliant criminals in TV/movie history. Think Sherlock and Moriarty but Sherlock is a criminal…
Walt gets progressively smarter as they build up over season 1 and 2 but I think this is coincidence and not a direct plan of the shows creator, ie, it wasn’t planned but once Walt got to a certain level of brilliance they had to create a new super smart bad guy just to keep the show interesting.
I’ll second the Skylar thing. The first season is shockingly bad w.r.t. the writing of her character. In fact I don’t even think her character is treated consistently between season one and the rest of the show–I think the writers, for whatever reason, made some bad missteps in the first season, then corrected later on.