Yes! Especially music.
Breaking Bad, of course. Either that or HBO’s Rome.
Orphan Black.
How is it ridiculous, other than it is different from your opinion?
Strawman. Nobody equated Marcus Welby to RJ. Who said that Breaking Bad wasn’t as creative as Gunsmoke? You’re winning arguments that nobody is making.
What I’ve said is that any top list with only modern TV shows is silly.
Many more people buy Katy Perry albums these days than Robert Johnson but I hope you won’t conclude the KP is way more creative that RJ.
You’ll have to explain why early TV was devoid of creativity when movies–a fairly similar art medium–had plenty of creativity right from the start.
It was ridiculous as in non sequiter. Your making an equivalency with music is a straw man. Music and TV are different forms, different industries, under different pressures from different sources, over different time frames and producing different kinds of garbage. Other than that they must be exactly the same.
Many more people watch reality tv shows than watched the Sopranos. There is still a lot of garbage in the world, maybe more, and we are probably going to hell in a handbasket, culturally speaking anyway.
The point is being made that there are many advanced, evolved tv shows that have more realism and adult themes than old time network shows, and there have been enough of them to populate a top 10 list at least. It’s easy to go from there to a conclusion you may think is silly, but that’s just an opinion too.
I think you have to explain why you think the 21st century isn’t an improvement over the “boob tube” era. You seem to have an attachment to what the networks have sold over the years. I do too. But I have recognized it as nostalgia. I have seen too many reruns that I was dying to see again, that couldn’t hold my interest in the end.
TV has gotten indisputably better since the late 90’s as we’ve entered into “the golden age of television”. Pretty much every critic in the medium agrees on that.
Because access to TV has always been mediated by networks, TV has always been an economic proposition. There was never such a thing as “Indie TV” (until the advent of the web if you consider web series as “tv”) in the same way as there was indie music and arthouse cinema.
The real reason TV has gotten better isn’t because the creators have gotten better (after all, many of the top movie directors could have obviously made fantastic TV series), it’s because audiences started demanding higher quality content to the extent that it became economically viable to make great TV.
The precise factors that lead to this shifting landscape are long and fascinating (fragmentation of the market, changing business models, declines in ratings to be considered viable, cheaper filmmaking technology) but it all of it lead to a TV landscape where the best shows are heads and shoulders above the shows pre-golden age.
No mention of Doctor Who? Yes (Prime) Minister? Only Fools and Horses? Etc. Funnily enough, I haven’t seen any of that writer’s top five.
Well said. Something recent can look better to modern eyes, but not be nearly as good in content as something made long ago.
It’s worth keeping in mind that television is a relatively new medium, having been around for less than a century. Of course they’re still learning things, even fundamental things, about how to make it work. How advanced was music, say, a century after it was invented?
What are your examples of great content? Speaking for myself, the way shows look is the last thing I care about. It’s the content that has gotten better. I’m not even sure I’d know where to look for substantial content in network dramas. The business model never supported it.
Yes (Prime) Minister, Only Fools and Horses, The West Wing, Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes, and Prime Suspect, to name but six.
The West Wing was not made “long ago.”
My nominations would be Deadwood and Rome. For comedy, The Larry Sanders Show stands alone.
Again you’re attributing arguments that were never made. The comparison was with production values. Charlie Chaplin films had nowhere near the production values of today but they are still brilliant. I Love Lucy was also brilliant.
You like long-scripted shows but just because old TV rarely had such involved plots doesn’t make it a hack. Advanced realism is not indicative of artistic quality; otherwise Picasso was a hack.
I think you’re conflating production values and your own preferences with quality. Why would anyone expect any art form to be more creative 50 years after it started?
British television is excluded. The Brits strive for art to put on telly; sometimes they succeed admirably (I direct you attention toward the Hon. Francis Urquhart), sometimes they fail beyond words (I direct you to Mrs. Slocombe’s pussy), but there is just no comparison. The Americans attempted Man About the House and Red Dwarf, but both were beneath pathetic (even though one of them ran for many seasons).
If you think Robert Johnson and Katy Perry were working in the same medium, I don’t know how you can see any distinction between movies and TV.
I never mentioned production values once. It’s your hobgoblin for some reason. But in that you are conflating music and TV, I pointed out they are not the same thing and not comparable.
Advanced realism is not at issue, and is your straw man here somehow too.
You still have to make a case that a show that is trying to play out a string forever without much changing except when one of the stars dies or asks for too much money, is “creative” for us as the viewer. I realize it’s creative to get people to watch it for 5 10 or 20 years, but in terms of quality…
I quote you: “I think you’re conflating production values and your own preferences with quality. Why would anyone expect any art form to be more creative 50 years after it started?”
What does this mean? Who mentioned production values? Are you kidding about 50 years? Why would it not be?
And a whole season there is usually six episodes, so they have much more time to polish each one.
Let me try to boil it down. You said:
By this I gather that you believe that realism and adult themes result in a better quality TV show. However, realism and adult themes have no connection to artistic quality; they just happen to be a formats that you enjoy better than old time shows.
You’re the only person saying the difference is production values. No one else has argued “TV is better today because of better production values.”
Obviously production values are, in many respects, better, but I would suggest that in most cases they aren’t actually THAT much better. Most modern shows still rely on a budget-limited number of sets and don’t usually have an extraordinarily great number of special effects. Certainly more money was spent on the production values from “Breaking Bad” than “Hill Street Blues,” but after 20-30 episodes of looking at the inside of Walter White’s house, Jesse Pinkman’s living room, and a meth lab, the effect of the production values was pretty worn off. They did a great job of using the New Mexico desert as a location, but again, once you’ve seen the desert a few times it’s pretty much just “okay, we’re in the desert again.” Most TV series ever made have done the best they could with a limited budget. There have always been exceptions; Miami Vice was as set-varied and visually interesting as anything made today. The production values were, frankly, excellent.
So was “Miami Vice” as good a show as “Breaking Bad”? Hell no, and if you ran the series with exactly the same scripts today, people would find the show dramatically inferior to today’s best dramas.
That said, I agree than making as 8-to-12-episode hour show is different from making a 22-episode show, so a better comparison may be to compare today’s TV series to yesterday’s so-called “miniseries.” How do these shows compare to Lonesome Dove, Roots, Shogun, V, The Thorn Birds, or North and South? While those only went one “season,” they’re probably better comparisons.
You’re not “boiling it down.” You’re evading everything in my prior post.
TV has never been about art. It’s entertainment. In dramatic shows, the adult themes, and realism, and fantasy too, are all part of the advances in the medium that may or may not make it an art form now. But it certainly wasn’t before.
If you don’t think that modern shows are more entertaining then have at it. But I don’t think you would get much agreement about that. Think about why.